S. HRG. 108–203 

Senate Hearings

Before the Committee on Appropriations

Department of the Interior

and Related Agencies

Appropriations

Fiscal Year 2004

108th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 

H.R. 2691/S. 1391

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 
Interior Appropriations, 2004 (H.R. 2691/S. 1391)
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–929 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–203 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR

2004

HEARINGS

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 2691/S. 1391

AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 

SEPTEMBER 30, 2004, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Energy 

Department of the Interior 

Nondepartmental Witnesses

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate
(II)

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JAMES W. MORHARD, Staff Director 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Deputy Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland

Professional Staff

BRUCE EVANS

GINNY JAMES

LEIF FONNESBECK

RYAN THOMAS

PETER KIEFHABER (Minority) 

BROOKE LIVINGSTON (Minority)

Administrative Support

LARISSA SOMMER
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003

Page

Department of Agriculture: Forest Service ............................................................ 1

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003

Department of the Interior: Office of the Secretary ............................................. 57

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003

Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary ..................................................... 107

Nondepartmental witnesses .................................................................................... 163

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2004

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2003

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, Domenici, Bennett, Campbell, 

Dorgan, and Feinstein. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH, CHIEF 

ACCOMPANIED BY HANK KASHDAN, DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM AND 

BUDGET ANALYSIS 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. We will call the committee to order. Senator Dorgan is on his way. I will make my opening statement and he can 

make his opening statement when he gets here. It is 10 a.m. and 

we are going to run on time as close as we can, and get you out 

of here. We know you have a lot of work to do, Chief, but we welcome you here this morning and we appreciate you coming. We are 

operating on North Dakota time here, see—Byron, thank you for 

coming this morning. 

The Chief was the regional forester in Missoula, MT, and we had 

an opportunity to work together on some of the issues that always 

seem to follow the Forest Service around. It was a pleasure working with him then, and it is a pleasure to work with him now. The President’s budget for the Forest Service is $4.058 billion in 

discretionary appropriations this time. It represents a modest overall increase of 2.7 percent, compared to the 2003 level at $3.95 billion. Most of the agency’s programs are funded at levels similar to 

last year. However, I want to point out some that are not, and 

some areas that I find disappointing. 

There are some significant increases, however, the forest stewardship program at $35.5 million and the forest legacy program at 

$22.4 million, and wildfire suppression is $186 million. I believe 

the increase in the wildfire suppression is particularly important, 
2

given the experience you have had for the fire seasons of the past 

few years. 

Last year, the Agency spent $1.3 billion putting out fires, and the 

position of the Forest Service and how they handle themselves 

should be commended. The American people are now aware of what 

we can do to manage our forests in the areas of prevention, and 

to keep small fires small fires, instead of having these big ones that 

we have experienced over the last 10 years. 

DROUGHT

Last year, and of course starting back in 1988, pointed up that 

we cannot stand drought in our country and prevent these fires or 

keep them under control. The agency was forced to borrow $1 billion from nonfire programs, which caused significant disruption in 

many projects, and some had to be cancelled altogether. If the Forest Service spends as much money in fiscal year 2004 as they did 

last year, it will still need to borrow several million dollars from 

other accounts under the proposed budget. I hope we can work with 

you, Chief, and figure out some long-term solutions to this funding 

of fireighting costs so these disruptions can be minimized in the future. 

FIRE PREPAREDNESS

There is also a significant decrease in the proposed 2004 budget 

which I find troubling. The levels proposed for fire preparedness, 

for example. This would cause a loss of over half of our firefighters 

and engines we had on the ground last year. Reducing our readiness capability to this degree will only lead to more small fires escaping, and turning into the devastating fires that we have seen 

in the past on the evening news. 

BURNED AREA EMERGENCY REHABILITATION

I am also concerned about the elimination of funding for rehabilitation and restoring burned-over lands. Two years ago this program was funded at the level of $142 million. We have had two severe fires since then, which has burned millions of additional acres. 

There are many areas in my State that burned in 2000 that have 

yet to be treated or dealt with. If these acres are not restored soon, 

they may be permanently lost to invasive weeds and erosion. 

Funding for backlog maintenance has also been decreased by $46 

million, compared to the current level. This is unwise. However, on 

the financial management side I want to congratulate you. I am 

very pleased to see the agency finally obtained a clean audit. That 

is a credit to your office and your work. I can remember when you 

came in 2 years ago, looked at the books, and said, this is one area 

we really have to work on, otherwise we will always have a credibility problem. So I congratulate you on that. That is the first time 

that has been done in a long time. 

The monies—to work with you, though, not only in fire suppression, but prevention, stewardship, forest legacy, and forest health—

all of these programs are necessary, and I believe the American 

people are supportive of what you are doing. The fires that were 

seen on television every evening were devastating fires, and hot 
3

fires. These fires took everything right out of the soil. Management 

adjustments have to be made for future years, if we are to see 

healthy forests. 

We also need to do some management work in the areas of disease and bark beetle infestation. I would like to work with you on 

those areas. We have some forests that need attention, not only in 

Montana, but nationwide. Those areas are being identified and 

need special emphasis. 

I thank you for coming this morning. We look forward to your 

testimony and again, congratulations on your audit. This is our 

first year at this and I look forward to working with Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. He is my new ranking member, and Peter, 

it is good to see you back as we start down the Interior appropriations. We look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle as this appropriations process moves on. 

Senator Dorgan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I, too, 

look forward to working with you. Montana and North Dakota have 

a rather lengthy common border, and I know that you know a lot 

about——

Senator BURNS. Thank God for the Little Missouri, right? 

Senator DORGAN. That is right. You know a fair amount about 

North Dakota and I know a lot about Montana, so I think we will 

get along just fine. 

Chief, thank you for being here. You run a big agency, 34,000 people and $4 billion, a big responsibility. You and I met yesterday 

and talked a bit. 

Mr. Chairman, I just got notice a few moments ago that Senator 

Daschle has called a meeting of the Democratic leadership at 10:30, 

so I am going to have to leave earlier than I expected today, and 

I regret that is the case, but let me begin my opening statement, 

then, make a couple of points with Mr. Bosworth. I am going to 

submit some questions for the record, but I want to make a couple 

of points. 

FIREFIGHTERS

One, the chairman mentioned the issue of the firefighting budget. You and I talked about that yesterday, but firefighters have 

gone from 10,480 in fiscal year 2002 to 4,898 in fiscal year 2004, 

fire engines, 995 to 465 during the same period. I mean, it is 

wrong. This is not good planning. It is not good management. It is 

not an appropriate approach to these issues. You and I have talked 

about that. 

I recognize that this comes from deep in the bowels of the Office 

of Management and Budget, where they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, and I understand you probably cannot say much about that because you are a public servant who is 

going to have to support whatever is submitted to us as a budget, 

but I think deep in your heart you know that this does not make 

sense. We have got to adequately fund firefighting and fire suppression and preparedness, and this is not the case in these budgets. It was not last year. 
4

We raised the point last year during the hearings and it was sort 

of just dismissed, but the fact is that this has to be dealt with, and 

doing the little tip-toe dance that Mitch Daniels is doing on this 

does not do anybody any favors. That is not the way to address 

these issues. I hope if I do not get a chance to tell him, you will 

tell him that for me. 

LEAFY SPURGE

Let me just—I want to show you—Mr. Bosworth, this is leafy 

spurge. 

Let me tell you something about leafy spurge. We have lands 

that you are in charge of, the Forest Service is in charge of, that 

do not deal with their weeds appropriately. The Forest Service is 

not a good neighbor, and when you have got an infestation of 

30,000 or 40,000 acres of leafy spurge and you do not control them, 

what happens is, everyone else who is on the periphery of the Forest Service land is affected by it. 

The reason I brought this plant today is, I wrote an earmark of 

$200,000 in to have some additional chemicals put on the ground 

and to control leafy spurge on specific grasslands in North Dakota, 

and the fact is, I saw no evidence that that was put in the ground 

to control leafy spurge. Although the Forest Service did a little tap 

dance for me to say, well, here is how it happened, the fact is, I 

think it was subsumed into payment for the bureaucracy, and I did 

not see any evidence that there was additional control on the 

ground of leafy spurge, despite the fact that that is what we put 

the money in for, and we have got ranchers out there that are trying to deal with this, and leafy spurge is one noxious weed, but in 

our part of the territory it is one that is pretty devastating, and 

we have to control these noxious weeds on our land. This is Forest 

Service land. We have a responsibility. If regular folks do not control it, we are after them all the time, and the Federal Government 

has to meet its responsibility, Mr. Bosworth. You and I have talked 

about that. I know you are looking into this. 

At any rate, Mr. Bosworth, this is serious business for a lot of 

folks in North Dakota, and I want to work with you on that, and 

I mentioned the fire suppression. As a matter of fact, on forest 

issues we rank 50th among the 50 States in native forestlands in 

North Dakota, so I am a lot less familiar with forest issues than 

many of my colleagues, who have great familiarity with them, but 

I am anxious to work with you on many of these issues. 

GRAZING PERMITS

If I might mention one additional point we have got with respect 

to our grasslands in the Cheyenne Valley, we need a new 10-year 

grazing agreement, and I think on March 23 the current one expires, so there is great concern that we would have a circumstance 

were cattle to be taken off of those lands. You told me yesterday 

that would not be the case, and that you would do extensions until 

we reach a new agreement. For that I am very appreciative, and 

I hope we can reach an agreement. 

But Mr. Chairman, thanks for indulging me to be able to do this 

now so that I can go to that leadership meeting later. 
5

Senator BURNS. Yes, and do not let it go to seed. That is all I 

ask. 

He brings up a good point, I also want to bring it up, and there 

is not a better place. He brought up grazing permits. We not only 

have spurge, but we have spotted knap. And now we are going to 

have a little lesson in weeds. I do not know what it is in Washington, D.C. Just go to one of these glitzy Grey Poupon and white 

wine receptions, and when they come around and they ask what 

your main interest is in Washington, and you say weeds, see how 

fast you are left standing there by yourself. 

It is not a big thing here. It is like yesterday morning, I offered 

to go down and help the guy get his John Deere tractor out of that 

puddle, because it is just too wet to plow there. 

NOXIOUS WEEDS

The grazing permit—because what he is trying to do, and this 

problem of noxious weeds go hand in hand, Dale. The only way you 

get this weed and spotted knap is sheep. Sheep will do it. You can 

put chemicals out there, you can fight them with hoses——

Senator DORGAN. To explain, sheep eat it. 

Senator BURNS. That is right. Sheep will get rid of noxious 

weeds. And it is a problem in Montana, so I appreciate—we are 

going to get along just fine. I found another weed guy. There are 

not very many of us here, Byron. 

Senator DORGAN. That is right. 

Senator BURNS. But this is something that has to be dealt with. 

The grazing permits, and the control of noxious weeds go hand in 

hand in our forest management. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, we could do a caucus of leafy 

spurge, spotted knap, and creeping Jenny. 

Senator BURNS. And Russian thistle. 

Senator DORGAN. And Russian thistle. 

Senator BURNS. You bet. We could get them all. 

Senator Campbell. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

Senator CAMPBELL. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I sure do like this 

hearing. 

It sure is a lesson. What we really need in your budget is something for more sheep, apparently. We probably will not have that, 

but I do know that you recognize the real danger. All of us come 

from western States that are on the committee today, and the fire 

season out there, they tell us, even though we have gotten a lot of 

snow in Colorado in the last few days, they say is going to be every 

bit as bad as it was last year, and as I look at the President’s budget there is obviously a slight increase from $4.7 billion to $4.8 billion. I do not think that is nearly enough, and I have to associate 

my comments with Senator Dorgan. I think that maybe the best 

thing we can do is, the next time we have a big fire out there is 

press OMB into service to come out there and help fight the thing. 

Maybe they would recognize the real dangers that we face. 

But you know, as I travel around, like my colleagues from the 

West, we are seeing more and more indicators that because of insect infestation there is just mile after mile of dead timber, which 
6

always is going to become worse fuel this summer. I was down by 

Cortez, Colorado about 2 weeks ago, and I was just amazed. All the 

pine in that area, it is almost all dead, and you can just pick them 

out from the junipers and the other trees. Whatever that insect is 

is just attacking pines, and by next year there is just going to be 

a whole dead forest there. 

Well, in any event, you know the devastating fires we had in Colorado—last year between the Hayman fire and the Missionary 

Ridge fire, the cost of property. Fortunately we did not have many 

lives lost—I think only one or two, frankly, but it is getting worse. 

GROUNDED FIRE AIR TANKER FLEET

But there is something else, too, that is really beginning to bother me, and hopefully you will address it, or I will ask it maybe in 

a question, but it is my understanding that one-half of the whole 

tanker fleet is grounded now and out West, boy, we really rely on 

those planes, and I do not know how we are going to replace the 

planes or the money for the planes, because I imagine they are 

pretty darned expensive. 

A lot of those old World War II planes, the airframes are getting 

fatigued and they just cannot fly them anymore, and after those 

two tragic accidents last year I certainly recognize they have got 

to be grounded if there is a chance of killing some of the pilots, but 

out where we are, those things are the first responders in many 

cases, and I have been to a couple of fires where I have seen them 

start, seen the planes take off, seen them put out, all within a 1-

hour period of time before people could even get out there, so I 

would like you to address that if you could and just let me tell you 

that I would like you to maybe also give us your prognosis about 

some of the litigation. 

ANALYSIS PARALYSIS

I think all the attacks from the environmental community every 

time you want to do a prescribed burn or do a clearing is probably 

on the downside a little bit this year, because they are clearly recognizing they are on the wrong side of public opinion and most 

Americans, particularly out West, are saying we have got to do a 

better job of managing the forest, and I remember, perhaps it was 

last year or a year before, we were told that about 41 percent of 

the money that was used in the Forest Service program was either—it was called analysis paralysis, I think was the word they 

used. It was used for doing studies and preparing to defend yourself and, in fact, in defending in the actual lawsuits, and I would 

like to know a little bit more about what you see in that area, too, 

this year. 

But thank you for being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Feinstein. Turn your button on, Dianne. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have only been here for 10 years. I am a 

slow learner. 

Senator BURNS. Auctioneers know how to use these things pretty 

rapid. 
7

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks, Chief. Thank you. 

Mr. Bosworth, in California I do not think we have the leafy 

spurge or the Russian thistle, but we do have the Yosemite toad 

and the fairy shrimp, and I want to talk to you a little bit about 

the Sierra Nevada Framework Agreement. 

I very much appreciate what you have done with respect to the 

framework, particularly because it actually prevented a listing of 

the California spotted owl as threatened and endangered, but this 

past week the Forest Service announced that it is planning to proceed with a plan to undo some key elements of the framework, and 

I am very concerned about it, because I think it is going to cause 

a huge problem of conflict in the State, and I would like to give you 

a March 19 letter from Mary Nichols, the Director of the Resources 

Agency, who expresses concerns that you have not worked with the 

State in determining this, and she says the outcome is unacceptable to the State. 

COLLABORATIVE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

They have proposed an alternative plan offering to bring the resources of the State to a collaborative adaptive management program in the 21⁄2 million acres of wildland-urban interface, where 

you have got Class 3 forest problems, and my hope would be that 

you would work with the State. The State—and I have had a conversation with Secretary Nichols, and they understand, and they 

are prepared to be supportive of the need to clean out the forest 

for a forest fire. She says they want to work more aggressively 

than you want to work to do it, so that is the first issue. 

YOSEMITE TOAD

The second issue is, there is something called the Yosemite toad. 

You know, the fairy shrimp are microscopic little shrimp that grow 

in vernal pools, so if a puddle lasts more than 90 days, a shrimp 

can pop up and it can stop whatever is going on around it, whether 

it is a new vineyard or anything else. Well, the Yosemite toad apparently comes out of pools at higher levels where there are ranchers grazing on public land, and it is my understanding that a number of these ranchers are essentially going to have to be put out 

of business, and I would like to ask you personally to take a look 

at that and see if there is not any way ranchers can be allowed to 

graze in other areas, rather than be put out of business. 

I think there are anywhere from half a dozen to a dozen ranchers 

who are going to be put out of business, and one of the things that 

I really believe is also important as we do these things is to protect 

the heritage of the State, and ranching has been a heritage of the 

California frontier. I would like to see it protected wherever I can, 

and I think there is a way of moving around some of these pools 

without putting the ranchers out of business, so I would be hopeful 

that you would be willing to work with them. 

BARK BEETLE

The third problem is the bark beetle. I think all of us have a big 

problem with the bark beetle. I know I talked to Senator Kyl yes-
8

terday about Arizona. There is a big infestation there, and we have 

150,000 acres of forest that are infested, particularly in the Lake 

Arrowhead area, the Idlewild area of California. 

The Governor has declared a state of emergency, and we need to 

find a way to quickly respond to these forest epidemics to reduce 

this spread, so I wrote you a letter on February 18, which is a 

month ago, asking you to address the situation and hoping for a 

response. I have not gotten that response as of yet, so I hope today 

you might address what you are going to do about the bark beetle 

as well. 

LAKE TAHOE RESTORATION ACT

Additionally, 3 years ago Congress passed the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. As you know, the Tahoe National Forest surrounds 

Lake Tahoe, and we authorized $300 million over 10 years, the 

Federal Government to contribute a third. There really is good 

news. First, there is a huge consensus in the population. Second, 

Lake Tahoe’s clarity has been increasing. It is now 73 feet, which 

is good news, but the disappointment is that there is only I think 

$6 million in this budget to continue that plan, and so I hope to 

be able to add to that a little bit. 

QUINCY LIBRARY GROUP

The final thing is the Quincy Library Group. As you know, I was 

a Senate sponsor of that legislation. I am very supportive of it. The 

project has had a number of delays, had a number of bumps. The 

President proposes $26 million to implement it this year the same 

as last year, and I am very hopeful that it will be able to serve as 

a model in other areas, and so I would like any comments you 

would care to make on that as well. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you, Mr. Bosworth. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. 

Senator Bennett.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT BENNETT

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most everything I 

was going to cover has been covered. 

Senator BURNS. Turn your mike on. 

Senator BENNETT. Oh, I have to do that, too. All right. 

PRAIRIE DOG

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Most everything I had intended to 

say has been covered. Senator Campbell, because our States adjoin 

each other, has exactly all the same concerns I have. I have to say 

to Senator Dorgan, he says you get a prairie dog and as soon as 

you get one you get a whole bunch. There are parts of my State 

where they are endangered species, and you have got a whole 

bunch, but nobody can do anything about them. 

Senator DORGAN. But they are not really endangered. They are 

just on the list, right? 

Senator BENNETT. Well, they are endangered because the attitude in the local community is the three-S solution: shoot, shovel, 
9

and shut up. Whether that really solves the problem, I do not 

know. 

BARK BEETLE

Then Senator Feinstein talks about the bark beetle, the combination of Senator Feinstein and Senator Campbell. In our State the 

problem with the bark beetle are all of the lawsuits that get filed, 

and the Forest Service is absolutely handcuffed in dealing with it 

because every time they want to go into the Dixie Forest to deal 

with the bark beetle, which is an enormous problem, somebody files 

a lawsuit and says oh no, no, you cannot do this because somehow 

this will invade the pristine nature of the forest, and by the time 

they get through with the lawsuit, then the bark beetle has expanded another few thousand acres and the Forest Service says, 

okay, we are going to do it now. 

EVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION COSTS

Well, they file a new lawsuit because it is a new set of acreage, 

and there is great concern that we may, in fact, lose the entire 

Dixie National Forest over this, so I just echo the concern about 

the bark beetle that Senator Feinstein has and hope, along with 

Senator Campbell, that we can find a way to deal with the litigation. I would be interested, if you have not got the number ready 

for us here, if you would supply what percentage of your budget is 

taken up in fighting litigation. 

We have asked that question of the BLM director and the numbers are between 40 and 50 percent, depending on which area you 

are talking about, and that is a huge, huge drain on the land management capabilities. We try to give you the resources you need in 

order to do the job properly, but if all of those resources are eaten 

up in lawsuits—which interestingly enough, the BLM always wins. 

It is not a case that the BLM is doing a bad job of stewardship. 

It is the fact that they are constantly being diverted with lawsuits, 

and they have to prove over and over and over again that their 

stewardship is fine in court, and one begins to believe that the 

basic strategy is not to file a legitimate lawsuit, but to hamstring 

the agency through this device, and I would appreciate any statistics you could give us about what percentage of your budget goes 

to lawsuits, or defending legal activities, and whether or not it is 

rising. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator Bennett. 

Senator Domenici. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Senator DOMENICI. Well, by the time we get to me, I have all the 

same problems. I would say that we did submit to Deputy Under 

Secretary Dave Tenny questions with respect to the bark beetle in 

New Mexico. I would appreciate it if you would look at the question 

and get it answered. 

We have a very old, long-infested piece of BLM forest up in 

Northern New Mexico. It is already beginning to rot, it is old, and 
10

it is growing. We submitted some questions about treating and the 

like to which we would like to have some answers. 

You know, about now in my life in the Senate, I kind of get tired 

of coming to meetings and complaining that litigation is taking all 

our time. We cannot get anything done. I really wish that people 

like you would tell us what we ought to do so that we do not have 

that situation. I am not interested in having another long list of 

how much time it is taking. We are not doing anything to change 

the situation, and most of you all say that we cannot change it. It 

is the law. 

I think we ought to give it a try, even if it is some very significant surgery that we have to do on these statutes. Something is 

amiss when we cannot take care of the problems that are so patent 

that anybody with an ounce of common sense, a few dollars, and 

a little bit of expertise would at least get started on some of these 

things, but we cannot. 

STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

Let me suggest, if you look at this year’s budget, in all deference 

to the President, you will not get much done this year, either. By 

the time we run out of money, when we cannot put out the fires 

and we start borrowing again, the good plans you have got going 

will get stopped. There is not enough money for the programs to 

clean the forest and thin them either, from what I can tell. I hope 

I am wrong, but that is what it looks like to me. 

I have one ray of hope, and I hope it does not get bogged down 

in court so it takes forever. I do have a strong sense that if you 

all will apply the stewardship contract approach in the right way, 

and we do not get ourselves in lawsuits where we have acted improperly, I believe there is a real chance you can have companies 

that will go in and contract to clean and manage and thin out in 

exchange for what they can take off the forest. You might get a lot 

of work done for not too many dollars that can quite properly be 

managed. I think it can be used for cleaning out infestations and 

anything. 

Right now, however, it is deemed by the environmentalists to be 

a subterfuge for logging. To the extent I read it, I see all the ways 

we could use it that would not be logging, would not be any subterfuge to get around the logging laws. I hope you can find ways to 

use stewardship contracting, and I hope you all think it is a good 

approach. I see no other way, based on personnel, management capacity, and money to get the forests of America managed and back 

where they are a credit. 

So with that, if you can comment on that later, fine. I have some 

questions about my State that I will ask or submit later. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator Domenici. I read your statement, Mr. Bosworth, and I just want to point out a couple of things 

that you have highlighted in your statement. I am glad we are finally taking a look to see where we want our forests to be in 100 

years, and the management it will take to get there within the next 

100 years. That is foresight, and hazardous fuels. 

You may summarize your statement if you like. Your entire 

statement will be made a part of the record. As with all of the Sen-
11

ators who are here today, your full statement will be made a part 

of the record. 

Chief Bosworth, we welcome you and we look forward to your 

testimony. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF DALE BOSWORTH

Mr. BOSWORTH. Thank you. Is this on? It is on, good. After all 

these problems we had with that I was not sure. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I do appreciate 

the opportunity to talk about the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget for the Forest Service. I have Hank Kashdan with me today. 

Hank is the Director of Program and Budget Analysis for the Forest Service. He will help me answer some of the specifics in terms 

of dollar questions that you might have. 

It is really good to have you back in the chair, Senator Burns. 

I really appreciate the working relationship that we have had in 

the past so it is good to have you there. It is also good to have Senator Dorgan in the ranking minority member position. It does make 

me feel a little bit like I am back home in the Northern Region. 

I worked with both North Dakota and Montana. Of course, we had 

lots of opportunities to work together. It does make me feel like I 

am back home until I look out of the window and see that I am 

still in the city. It is a little bit different here. 

I would like to acknowledge completion of the fiscal year 2003 

budget process. It was important to us, the completion of that. 

There are some thanks that you deserve for supporting some things 

like: Fire reimbursement—$636 million I believe is what we were 

reimbursed for the Forest Service—stewardship contracting, which 

was mentioned by Senator Domenici; an achievement of balance between fire suppression and fire preparedness. Those were some of 

the things that came up in some of the opening remarks. 

STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

I wanted to take this opportunity to say right now that I am 

strongly supportive, almost to the point of obnoxiousness, of stewardship contracting. I mean, it can be our future. It can make a 

huge opportunity for us to be able to treat, particularly, some of the 

fuels kinds of problems that we have. There are other kinds of opportunities beyond fuels management. We have been experimenting with it now for about 4 or 5 years, thanks in good part 

to the chairman, and we have learned a lot. This is an expanded 

authority which, I think, if we are smart in the way that we implement it, we will have people from all different viewpoints feeling 

like this is a good tool to help us do the right things on the national forests. So I really appreciate having the opportunity to expand the use of that. 

FIRE PREPAREDNESS AND SUPPRESSION

The other thing, the balance between fire suppression and preparedness: In the 2003 budget we have the opportunity to move the 

dollars back and forth between suppression and preparedness, depending upon what the fire season looks like. That can be very, 

very helpful to us because we are looking at—we are talking about 
12

the 2004 fire season in this budget. We do not really know what 

that is going to look like in 2004. As we get closer and closer, then, 

you want to maybe move money from one side to the other, depending on what the conditions are like. So the way the 2003 budget 

is set up, that gives us that flexibility to be able to make some of 

those adjustments, which I appreciate very much. 

AUDIT OPINION

I am going to talk mostly about healthy forests, the national fire 

plan, and the Agency priorities. I do want to mention our financial 

accountability first. I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman, 

about our accomplishment in finally achieving a clean audit opinion. It is very important for us to have done that. I am very proud 

of the folks who worked really hard to accomplish that. It is almost 

unheard of to, really, go from no opinion to an unqualified audit 

opinion in just 1 year. We feel very good about that. 

But I also have to say that that is the very, very, very minimum 

that taxpayers ought to expect of us. At the least, we ought to be 

able to do that. We have a long ways to go yet in our organization 

to be able to sustain that clean audit opinion. We still have other 

changes we have to make in terms of how we are organized, in 

terms of how we manage our financial dollars. I believe that, while 

it is our job in the Forest Service to be good stewards of the public 

lands, it is also our job to be good stewards of the public funds. We 

intend to do that. 

A little bit, just sort of an overview, I guess, of the fiscal year 

2004 President’s program: For me, the reality is that it is a flat 

budget, the very, very best that we can expect, given the international and domestic issues that we are faced with. Having a flat 

budget is the most that we can expect. That is what we have. 

HEALTHY FORESTS INITIATIVE

We have legislative and regulatory initiatives, though, that I believe will help stretch those dollars a lot further to get more money 

on the ground. That would accomplish some of those things like the 

President’s Healthy Forests Initiative. To me, the key solution here 

is to be able to do more with the dollars that we have. That is what 

some of these initiatives tie into. 

We have the Healthy Forests Initiative—many of you are very, 

very familiar—and everybody from the West is very, very familiar—with some of the fires that we have had—the problems that 

the lack of good forest health has brought to us. Many of these 

large fires happened because of the lack of forest health. 

Senator Feinstein mentioned the San Bernadino National Forest. 

One of the problems is that we are in a drought situation. There 

are way, way too many trees there for what the conditions, the natural conditions, would have been because we have been suppressing fires for years and years and years. 

So now we are faced with the problem of trying to clean up a 

place that is messed up because of insects and diseases—particularly insects, bark beetles in this case, with a whole lot of dead 

trees—rather than having treated it 10 years ago, or 15 years 

ago—to have a healthy forest condition so that we do not have to 
13

deal with the clean-up and then potential devastating fire problems. 

I think that is a good example. There are many other examples 

that we have seen around the country that are facing us that, if 

we can be proactive and get the work done on the ground, we 

maybe hopefully can avoid some of those circumstances. 

I think there are lots of opportunities—the same thing in Idaho 

again, or in Montana again—with stewardship contracting—to try 

to achieve some of the same things there, and that can apply to 

places—we have the same opportunities in New Mexico, Utah, and 

Colorado. Those are some great opportunities that I am really anxious to continue the work with this committee on. 

We have had good support from this subcommittee in the whole 

notion of forest health and long-term fuels reduction. That is going 

to be the challenge for us over the next 10 to 15 years. I hope we 

can continue with that. 

RESEARCH

There are some other increases in the budget that I think are important that I want to point out. There is an increase in research 

that is targeted at sudden oak death and other invasive species—

an additional increase for fire-related research, and that is going 

to be really important. We need to do a good job of research. We 

need to be building our research capacity back. When we get some 

of these events, like sudden oak death, we have to have the capability to try to learn as much about that as quickly as we can or 

we can end up with some really difficult situations. 

RANGE MANAGEMENT

We have an increase in range management to help improve the 

health of rangelands—an increase for forest legacy, I think that 

you had mentioned, better enable acquisition of conservation easements on some important tracts. 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

There is an array of legislative proposals that will do things like: 

update the appeals process; streamline the execution of the highest-priority hazardous fuels reduction areas; expand partnership 

authorities; improve the ability of partners to cooperate with the 

Agency—because right now it is very difficult for people to be partners with us and so there is a legislative initiative that would help 

that—and also to make existing watershed enhancement authority 

permanent, known as the Wyden authority. 

It is also important to note that there is a proposal to make the 

Recreation Fee Demonstration Program permanent. I do believe 

that a large majority of recreation users support that program. 

A lot of comments were made in the opening remarks that I 

would be happy to respond to. I could respond, I think, more to direct questions regarding these things. The one I would like to 

just—several people talked about ‘‘analysis paralysis’’ or ‘‘process 

gridlock.’’
14

PROCESS PREDICAMENT

We submitted—developed a report in the Forest Service about a 

year ago in which we referred to a ‘‘process predicament.’’ The purpose of that report was to identify problems. It did not offer solutions but identified problems. We used that as a means to try to 

get some kind of understanding and agreement as to whether there 

was really a problem. We believed there was. 

My belief is that it was useful for that. People recognized that 

we have problems and are willing to work with us. Consequently, 

we have submitted a number of things. We proposed some changes 

in our planning regulations. That, hopefully, would reduce the time 

to do a forest plan from something like—8 to 10 years is what it 

has been taking us—down to maybe 2 years. I mean, they are out 

for public comment right now. That is what I would like to do: To 

be able to get them and shorten that period of time. 

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS

We are proposing some ‘‘categorical exclusions’’ which would 

mean that we would exclude certain kinds of projects from documentation in an environmental impact statement. We would still 

do analysis, still do public involvement. We just would not document it in an environmental impact statement for those projects 

that we have done over and over and over and over again. We 

know, after having done it so many times, that we are not going 

to have adverse effects on the environment. 

So we are proposing a number of categorical exclusions that we 

believe will help speed up the process for things like some smalldebris removal, for fuels treatment, and for restoration and rehabilitation. Those are out for public comment right now. They are 

not all favorable, the comments we get on those but, again, I believe that if we get the opportunity to implement some of those 

things, we can show people what we can do on the ground. They 

will like what they see. We are trying to move forward and deal 

with that issue. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So I am going to wrap it up now. I will answer questions. I am 

happy to be in this job right now. It is an exciting time. It is an 

honor to be here. I look forward to working with you. I will be 

happy to answer your questions. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE N. BOSWORTH

Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2004 Budget for the Forest 

Service. I am accompanied by Hank Kashdan, Director of Program and Budget 

Analysis for the Forest Service. It is a great privilege to be here today. 

Before discussing my testimony in detail, let me first thank you Mr. Chairman 

for your support of the Forest Service and your focus on management of the nation’s 

natural resources. The Committee’s support of expanded authority for stewardship 

contracting as contained in the fiscal year 2003 Appropriation’s Act, exemplifies this 

focus. And Senator Dorgan, let me start by congratulating you on assuming the 

ranking member position on the Subcommittee. I look forward to working with you 

in this important role. 
15

OVERVIEW

Teddy Roosevelt’s rich legacy includes the Forest Service, and he once observed 

that people should make few promises and then keep them. Our agency, which will 

celebrate its 99th anniversary during the 2004 budget year, has made more than 

a few promises. I am often asked about my vision for the Forest Service. The Forest 

Service must be viewed as the world’s leader in natural resource management by 

living up to commitments, efficiently using and accounting for the taxpayer funds 

that are entrusted to us, and treating people with respect. My vision as we approach 

the centennial is to heed TR’s advice. We are an agency that keeps its promises. 

The fiscal year 2004 President’s budget request for the Forest Service is $4.8 billion, $119 million greater than the fiscal year 2003 Enacted Budget. The fiscal year 

2004 Budget provides funding to reduce the risk of wild land fire to communities 

and the environment by implementing the President’s Healthy Forests Initiative. In 

addition, it provides funds to enhance the ability of the Forest Service to meet multiple demands. The major departure from fiscal year 2003 is an increase of $187 million for wild land fire suppression and additional increases in funds for forest and 

rangeland research, forest stewardship, forest legacy, range management, and hazardous fuels reduction. 

This past August the President announced the Healthy Forests Initiative in order 

to help reduce the risks of catastrophic wildfires to communities and the environment. The fiscal year 2004 budget proposal contains a combination of legislative and 

funding priorities the President feels are necessary to address this need, as signaled 

in his State of the Union message. The Healthy Forests Initiative builds on the fundamentals of multiple use management principles that have guided the Forest Service since its formation. These principles embody a balance of conservation and balanced approach to the use of natural resources that are valid today in working with 

local communities, States, Tribes, and other Federal agencies. 

ACCOUNTABILITY

In my testimony today I want to discuss in detail how the President’s fiscal year 

2004 budget and accompanying legislative initiatives will improve the health of our 

forests and rangelands, but first let me focus on the agency’s effort to improve its 

financial accountability. 

When I began my career, the Forest Service was viewed as a model federal agency, accomplishing our mission for the American people. I am pleased to share with 

you today a stride that takes us closer to the reputation of a generation ago. 

Through the extraordinary efforts of our employees across the nation, we and our 

USDA counterparts have achieved an unqualified audit opinion for 2002. This is an 

important step in a continuing effort to fulfill promises previous Chiefs and I have 

made to get the Forest Service financial house in order. To progress from no opinion 

to a clean opinion in just one year is unprecedented. This unqualified audit opinion 

sets the basis for our next steps, which include additional financial reforms to efficiently consolidate financial management personnel; improve the effectiveness of the 

financial management system as part of the funds control and budget execution 

process; and improve the quality of account reconciliation. It will take as much work 

to keep that clean financial opinion as it did to earn it. But, this important accomplishment of a clean audit opinion demonstrates the progress we are making in 

keeping our word. 

PROCESS PREDICAMENT

When I met with you a year ago, gridlock and analysis paralysis directly affected 

our ability to deliver on many promises: to protect communities from catastrophic 

wildfire, to provide a sustainable flow of forest and grassland products, and to sustain the landscapes used and enjoyed by the American people. These problems still 

exist, but the Forest Service has taken the initiative to deal with this process predicament within its authority by proposing regulations and policies. I believe we are 

on the road to success. We proposed a revised planning rule to provide a more readily understood planning process—one that the agency can implement within anticipated budgets. We proposed new processes to simplify documentation under NEPA 

for management activities that do not significantly affect the environment—small, 

routine projects that are supported by local communities, such as salvaging dead 

and dying trees or removing insect infested or diseased trees. We propose to work 

with you and the American people to keep our promise that these measures are 

about sustainable land stewardship. 
16

PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

The Forest Service has developed and is implementing a comprehensive strategy 

to achieve the objectives of the President’s Management Agenda. Today I’ll highlight 

a few of the significant efforts we’re making to improve Forest Service management 

and performance. In the competitive sourcing arena, we will conduct public/private 

competitions on 3,000 full-time equivalent positions during fiscal year 2004, identifying the most efficient, effective way to accomplish work for the American people, 

as identified in the Agency’s Efficiency Plan which has been submitted to the Administration. Our e-government energies will move beyond web information delivery 

into four important areas: incident planning and management, recreation services 

and information, electronic planning record, and the federal and non-federal assistance process. We are instituting critical oversight controls to keep wildfire suppression costs as low as possible while protecting communities and resources and improve our methods of reporting wild land fire suppression expenses. Several streamlining efforts are underway to reduce indirect costs and better examine the role and 

structure of various Forest Service organizational levels. 

An element of the President’s Management Agenda concerning budget and performance initiative, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis provides 

a standardized set of performance management criteria that provides a consistent 

evaluation process to identify areas of performance and budget integration they 

should improve. In fiscal year 2004, the Wildland Fire Management and Capital Improvement and Maintenance programs of the Forest Service were selected to participate in the first round of assessments using the PART. The PART analyses for these 

programs indicated that funds need to be better targeted within the Wildland Fire 

Management program while the annual performance measures of Capital Improvement and Maintenance program inadequately linked to ongoing management initiatives aimed at addressing the maintenance backlog. 

RANGELAND MANAGEMENT

The President’s budget provides a $2.6 million increase that supports a significant 

Forest Service promise—to make progress on completing environmental analysis on 

national forest rangelands. The funding increase will enhance our capability to manage livestock and support communities where rangelands are an integral part of the 

economy and way of life. 

FOREST SERVICE RESEARCH

Productive forests and rangelands provide wood and forage, clean water, wildlife 

habitat, recreation, and many other values. Key to sustained and enhanced productivity is developing and deploying integrated resource management systems based 

on the best science available. A $2.1 million increase in forest and rangeland research is a valuable addition to our program. Some of the increase will support research and development tools essential to prevent, detect, control, and monitor 

invasive species and restore impacted ecosystems. Other emphasis includes a pine 

bark beetle program that looks at new management strategies, better utilization of 

bark beetle trees, and developing additional treatment options for managers and 

landowners. Programs to identify new biological control agents and treatment methodology and to develop integrated pest management technology for land managers 

will also be accelerated. The President’s Budget recognizes the need for research to 

support the full range of challenges faced by land and resource managers because 

challenges don’t stop at National Forest System boundaries. Addressing the issues 

associated with America’s forests and grasslands—including hazardous fuels, protection of communities from catastrophic wildfire, invasive species, and pathogens—

doesn’t depend upon who owns the ground. Keeping this promise goes beyond the 

basic and applied science functions of research. We also need to bridge the gap between research findings and results on the ground. The request reflects the importance of technology transfer, internally in the Forest Service and externally through 

our university and State and Private Forestry program partners. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

Through close cooperation with State Foresters and other partners, our State and 

Private Forestry Program provides assistance to landowners and resource managers 

to help sustain the Nation’s forests and protect communities and the environment 

from wildland fire. The President’s budget contains an increase of over $31 million 

for these programs. While most of the forest health management, cooperative fire 

protection, and cooperative forestry programs continue at fiscal year 2003 levels, forest stewardship and the forest legacy program reflect an increase. A $34 million in-
17

crease for forest stewardship supports the objectives of the National Fire Plan, the 

Healthy Forest Initiative, and the Forestry Title of the 2002 Farm Bill. The increase 

will strengthen our partnerships through a competitive cost-share program, 

leveraging the effectiveness of federal funds to reduce hazardous fuels, improve 

invasive species management, and enhance forest production from state and private 

lands. This increase will support increased private landowners’ investment in the 

management of small diameter and underutilized forest products. In the forest legacy program, the President’s budget proposes a $22 million increase to conserve environmentally important private forests through partnerships with States and willing landowners. The budget will support partnerships with up to ten additional 

States that have not previously participated in the program. We expect total conservation of more than 200,000 acres, benefiting wildlife habitat, water quality, and 

recreation. 

THE NEXT 100 YEARS FOR AMERICA’S NATIONAL FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS

Some people and organizations still argue that timber harvest levels represent the 

greatest threat to the National Forests. However loudly voiced or strongly held 

these views may be, they are not accurate for the reality of management of the National Forests in the next 100 years. This year’s budget request supports a program 

to offer two billion board feet including salvage sales. 

The request addresses two key long-term challenges to America’s National Forests 

and Grasslands: the build up of hazardous fuels and the spread of invasive species 

that seriously impair ecosystems. In August of last year, the President announced 

the Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI). Its objectives include streamlining the decision-making process and continuing our long-term commitment of working with 

communities to achieve a meaningful level of public involvement. 

We are committed to our continued partnership with those that use and enjoy 

America’s National Forests as well as those that value them as part of our nation, 

no matter where they live. Although we have made progress, we must do more. Last 

year, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior proposed new legislation to authorize permanent stewardship contracting authority, expedited review, hazardous 

fuels reduction projects, and address a burdensome administrative appeal process. 

President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to Healthy Forests during the State of 

the Union Address. We are committed to working with you as you consider the proposals of the Secretaries. 

Hazardous Fuels 

The presence of large amounts of hazardous fuels poses a tremendous threat to 

people and to public and private natural resources. The Budget increases emphasis 

on protecting communities and property from the effects of these combustible fuels—

catastrophic wildfire. The budget supports the 10-year Comprehensive Strategy and 

Implementation Plan, developed in close collaboration with governors, communities, 

and the Department of the Interior. Through performance goals contained in the implementation plan, we will implement hazardous fuels reduction projects, improve 

fire suppression planning, expand forest product utilization, protect lands from fire 

related spreads of invasive species, and undertake key fire research. The budget contains an increase of nearly $187 million for fire suppression. Wild 

land fire suppression costs are increasing and are having significant impact upon 

a wide number of Forest Service programs. The cost increases are due a number 

of reasons, including costs associated with national mobilization, wild land fire suppression in areas of high hazardous fuel loads, large aircraft and helicopter operations, and the increasing complexity of suppression in the wild land-urban interface. To address these increasing costs, the Budget proposes that the Forest Service 

and the Department of Interior (DOI): review the cost-effectiveness of large fire 

aviation resources; establish a review team to evaluate and develop cost containment strategies; and revise procedures to improve reporting of fire suppression 

spending. Together with other actions, this should enable the Forest Service to significantly improve our ability to fight wildfires without the major impacts to other 

programs we experienced during last year’s fire fund transfers. Last year we kept 

our promise by aggressively fighting wildfire—long after funds appropriated specifically for fire suppression were gone—and catching more than 99 percent of fires the 

way they all start, small. The request includes a renewed emphasis on up-to-date 

fire management plans and wild land fire use fires. 

Accomplishing performance objectives under the National Fire Plan is also consistent with the President’s Management Agenda. Reducing hazardous fuels, protecting against fire-related invasive species, and targeting adequate resources to 

suppress wildfire promotes improved health of Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

lands as well as enhancing the economies of natural resource based communities. 
18

I again urge all of us—cooperators and skeptics—to keep a focus on what we leave 

on the land, not what we take from it. Effective, integrated hazardous fuels reduction can leave us with clean, healthy water, improved wildlife habitat, and more satisfying recreation experiences. 

Invasives 

Invasive species, especially weeds, pose a tremendous threat to forests and grasslands. Whether kudzu or leafy spurge or knapweed or oriental bittersweet vine, 

these unwanted invasives take hold and out compete native species, changing the 

look and structure of entire ecosystems. Our response to these threats needs to embrace an integrated approach. In the coming year we will improve integration of efforts among the National Forest System, Research, and State and Private Forestry, 

and other USDA agencies. 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

The fiscal year 2004 Budget contains several legislative proposals that significantly advance common sense forest health efforts that prevent the damage caused 

by catastrophic wildfires and move past ‘‘process gridlock’’ to improve agency land 

management efficiency. Four proposals, in particular, promote the President’s 

Healthy Forests Initiative by reducing hazardous fuels; permanently authorizing 

stewardship end results contracting; repealing the Appeals Reform Act; and revising 

standards of judicial review in decisions that relate to activities necessary to restore 

fire-adapted forest and rangeland ecosystems. 

Hazardous Fuels 

As mentioned earlier, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior proposed legislation that authorizes emergency fuels reduction projects in priority areas of federal forests outside wilderness areas. This will allow timely treatment of forests at 

risk of catastrophic fire and those that pose the greatest risk to people, communities, and the environment. Our top priorities will include the wild land-urban 

interface, municipal watersheds, areas affected by disease, insect activity, wind 

throw, and areas subject to catastrophic reburn. We would select projects through 

collaborative processes, consistent with the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and 

Implementation Plan. 

Fundamental to better implementation of core components of the National Fire 

Plan’s 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy is the outstanding cooperation that exists 

between the Forest Service, Department of the Interior, State governments, counties, and communities in the collaborative targeting of hazardous fuels projects to 

assure the highest priority areas with the greatest concentration of fuels are treated. 

Stewardship End Result Contracting 

Section 323 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003, authorizes the 

Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to undertake, for a period of 

10 years ‘‘stewardship end results contracting projects.’’ The Administration had requested this extended authority last year in the President’s Healthy Forest Initiative. I appreciate the action of the Congress in responding to the President’s request. We expect this tool, which had been available only to the Forest Service on 

a limited pilot basis, to be used to implement projects that have been developed in 

collaboration with local communities and which will primarily improve forest or 

rangeland health, restore and rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitat, and reduce hazardous fuel. Projects will have appropriate NEPA analysis and comply with agency 

wilderness and roadless policies, the relevant forest plans and appeals regulations. 

Repeal the Appeals Reform Act 

The Forest Service is subject to procedural requirements that are not required of 

any other Federal agency. To address this issue, the Secretaries of Agriculture and 

the Interior will propose legislation to repeal Section 322 of the Department of the 

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993 (commonly known as the 

‘‘Appeals Reform Act’’), that imposed these requirements that I believe limit our 

ability to work collaboratively with the public. 

Standards of Judicial Review 

To ensure that courts consider the public interest in avoiding irreparable harm 

to ecosystems and that the public interest in avoiding the short-term effects of such 

action is outweighed by the public interest in avoiding long-term harm to such ecosystems, the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior will propose legislation to 

establish revised rules for courts in decisions that relate to activities necessary to 

restore fire-adapted forest and rangeland ecosystems. 
19

The President’s Budget also includes legislative proposals to: 

—Expand or clarify existing partnership authorities, 

—Permanently authorize the Recreation Fee Demonstration program, 

—Allow for the transfer of Forest Legacy titles to willing State governments, 

—Promote watershed restoration and enhancement agreements, 

—Authorize a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund, 

—Restore eligibility for State and Private Forestry Programs of the three Pacific 

island entities in ‘‘Compacts of Free Association,’’ and 

—Eliminate requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources 

Planning Act of 1974 that duplicate the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993. 

CONCLUSION

We are fulfilling key promises in re-establishing sound management throughout 

the Forest Service. I want the Forest Service to be an organization people trust and 

once again point to as an example of good government. Earning this trust means 

becoming good stewards of not only public land and natural resources, but of public 

dollars, of public trust. We know the work is not complete—there are still many opportunities like large fire cost management, integrating information systems, and 

making organizational changes in administrative support operations—but we’re 

making good progress. 

Traditional functional and program boundaries do not serve us well—they get in 

the way of our ability to keep our word. I am committed to putting more effort into 

integrating our programs and becoming better partners with people interested in 

leveraging our work. The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative exemplifies an integrated approach to problems that affect not just national forests or national grasslands, but America’s forests and America’s rangelands. It is an opportunity for our 

private land neighbors, for research, for partner agencies, for everyone concerned 

about America’s forests and grasslands. 

Let me reiterate the deep honor I feel in being Chief of the Forest Service in this 

challenging time and the equally deep sense of obligation I feel to keep our promises 

to the American people. I enlist your continued support and look forward to working 

with you toward that end. 

I will be happy to answer any questions.

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much, Chief. I have a couple of 

questions, and then I want to move to my colleagues, because everyone is on a tight schedule. I have just a couple of questions. 

RESEARCH

In your R&D, I noticed in your monies to do research—the continual research of what we can do—how do we better manage our 

forests? I was going to ask you: Do you ever commission or grant 

out to land grant colleges for work to be done with regard to soil 

or water management, or watershed, or any of those things? Do 

any of the colleges across the country—I mean—New Mexico State 

University, I know, has a forestry school that is very good. Do you 

ever outsource any of that research to these colleges and land grant 

schools? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We do a lot of work in terms of research with 

colleges and universities. Yes, we do outsource research to colleges 

and universities. It depends upon the circumstances. In some cases, 

they are doing it in combination with our research organization. In 

other cases, it is just strictly outsourced to a college or university. 

STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

Senator BURNS. You might bring this up. I know some folks believe that stewardship contracting is somewhat controversial. I 

think you emphasized in your statement that stewardship contracting is going to be sort of the centerpiece of getting some things 

done on our forests that we need to be done. What are the other 
20

main objectives that could be accomplished through those stewardship contracts? How many contracts do you plan to let this year? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, the first part, the other kinds of objectives: 

The whole notion behind stewardship contracting is, first, to collaborate with the public up front, to figure out what condition you 

want the land to be left in. You work together to figure out what 

that may be. Then, under one request for proposal, you end up with 

a contract that will accomplish all the things that you want to accomplish on that piece of land. In other words, you are bundling 

all the activities together. 

So it may be things like reducing fuels. You may be able to do 

some work like habitat improvement for a threatened or endangered species, or for other species, some restoration work for a watershed, rehabilitation or restoration work. I think there are great 

opportunities to do some of the noxious weed kind of work that 

needs to be done as part of that. 

So you do all those jobs together. Then there is some value, there 

may be some value from some of the materials, some of the trees 

that are there. The value that is there would help offset the cost 

of doing that work. The contractor then would be able to utilize 

that material. So it makes a lot of sense because you work together 

and reduce the amount of dollars. 

Senator DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield? 

Senator BURNS. Sure. 

Senator DOMENICI. Have you not done that, experimented four or 

five times in pilot projects? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We have—let us see—we had 28 projects each 

year authorized for the last 4 years. It is a total—I do not have a 

calculator. I cannot multiply that out in my mind right now. Anyway, that is how many we are authorized to do. 

We have not completed a lot of those but we gained a lot of experience in working with the public in setting those up. We have 

done multi-party monitoring where we had people from the public 

to help monitor those experiments or those pilot projects. They 

were working very well. 

Again, we did not have final results in a lot of cases. We have 

the final results in some and a certain amount of progress in lots 

of cases. To me, the thing that was important—to monitor and see 

how it was working—is public acceptance: Whether or not we were 

actually getting people to look for common ground and find common ground. That was the important part. 

In terms of the number of projects or number of contracts that 

we have this year, it is difficult for me to answer that specifically. 

You know, we have delegated the authority, or will delegate the authority, to the regional foresters to use that tool wherever they can 

use it. There will be some sideboards. There are going to be more 

projects. We need to train people. There is some work that we are 

going to have to do now. We are expanding the use of that. I am 

anxious to get moving. I am anxious to have more opportunity to 

show people how it will work. I am certain it is going to be successful. 

Senator BURNS. Well, thank you very much. I am going to move 

on. I was going to ask you about your—I see you brought all your 
21

boxes of appeals to make some points. I will let somebody else handle that end of it. 

Senator Feinstein. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I very 

much appreciate what you are trying to do to correct the longstanding, I think, failed policy of fire suppression. I want you to at 

least know that this Senator wants to work with you in that regard. I am very concerned about the Class 3 areas in the Sierra 

Nevada, which are about a third of the Class 3 areas in those strategic areas of Class 3. 

SAN BERNADINO NATIONAL FOREST

The San Bernadino National Forest supervisor, Gene Zimmerman, told my staff that he believes solving the bark beetle problem 

will require at least $300 million—at least—just for that forest, including $5 to $6 million which is needed immediately simply to ensure that: Evacuation routes are maintained; critical fire breaks 

are established; and the necessary manpower and equipment are 

on hand. 

The Omnibus Appropriations bill provided about $3.3 million for 

this problem but it is not enough. How do you intend to address 

this issue financially? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. The total amount that Forest Supervisor Zimmerman is talking about—I have not scrubbed those numbers myself or had my staff take a hard look at those numbers—but there 

is no question that the problem there is going to be extensive to 

deal with. 

The regional forester, Jack Blackwell, has already committed to 

shifting some dollars within the region to get down to, shift them 

down to the San Bernadino NF because that is an urgent problem. 

There is a will to deal with it. The public down there is interested 

in dealing with it. So he is going to be shifting some of those dollars. 

They have already implemented some projects—I can get you 

some exact acreages, if you would like, and some more specific 

kinds of plans for what we can do—but we are not going to be able 

to put $300 million into that in the short term. That is just too 

much money. 

We also need to be very strategic in where we locate the kinds 

of treatments that we are going to do so that we can get the most 

out of every treatment to protect the communities, to protect the 

homes, and to protect the forest as well. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I recognize that $300 million is probably out of the can. As has been 

said by others here, it is a really serious problem. Anything you 

can do would be appreciated. 

LAKE TAHOE

I wanted to ask you about the Lake Tahoe situation. As you 

know, both California and Nevada are putting up their share of 

money. They have had enormous success at raising money in the 

private sector for that part of it. I am disappointed that so little 

is in the budget for the Lake this year. I have another question, 

too. 
22

There was $21 million transferred from the 2003 budget for Lake 

Tahoe to meet emergency wildfire suppression needs in that area. 

The regional forester, the one and only Jack Blackwell, has committed to use reimbursement monies in the Omnibus bill to restore 

those funds to Lake Tahoe. Chief, will you commit as well to use 

reimbursement monies in the Omnibus bill to reinstate the funds? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Actually, the dollars that were—the way that the 

payback—or the dollars to restore—the $636 million that I talked 

about earlier—some of that would have been automatically restored, about a third of it would not, of National Forest System dollars. About a third of it would not have been restored for Lake 

Tahoe. Regional Forester Blackwell has agreed to move the dollars 

to make sure that Lake Tahoe and, I believe, the Quincy Library 

Group as well—100 percent of those dollars will be restored. He is 

doing that within his own region. I appreciate the fact that he is 

taking that on and doing that within the flexibility that he has. 

Those dollars will be there. They will all be back in Lake Tahoe. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

LAKE ARROWHEAD

Can you quickly tell us what you are going to do in the Lake Arrowhead area—now, this is for residence protection—in those areas 

that are in the greatest danger of catastrophic fire due to the tree 

mortality surrounding their property? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, I am going to need some time to be really 

specific. I can tell you that our folks are working very closely right 

now with the county, with local law enforcement, as well as fire departments. Together we can take what we have to offer in the Forest Service, along with what the State, counties, and local jurisdictions have to offer, to work together to be able to provide that safety net that people need, but I cannot be specific about——

Senator FEINSTEIN. Maybe somebody could brief me on what you 

are doing in those areas, the bark beetle infestation areas——

Mr. BOSWORTH. We would be happy to do that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN [continuing]. With some specificity. I would 

appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you. Senator Campbell. 

Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, I recognize, 

as I am sure you do—we all do—we have got a huge deficit this 

year. Demands are up. States all have deficits. I have to tell you, 

I think when I look at your budget we are being penny-wise and 

dollar-foolish. 

WESTERN FOREST FIRES

Those fires are so intense out there. I do not know if you have 

visited some this last year—like the one in Arizona in the national 

forest down there, and on the Indian reservation, or the Hayman 

fire in Colorado, or the Missionary Ridge fire—but they are not like 

fires years ago. These things are—I mean—they are hotter, move 

faster, are more unpredictable—they are worse. 

I visited the Missionary Ridge fire near Durango while the firefighters were there. I talked to a couple of firefighters. They told 

me that the flames were moving at about 50 miles an hour some-
23

times. They actually saw birds being burned out of the sky. They 

could not even out-fly the flames. That is a hot fire. 

I think that, you know, we are going to pay the bill no matter 

what. Durango is a good example. After that particular fire, there 

was a lot of sediment washing down from the burn area. They 

came back and asked me to get them one-half million dollars in the 

appropriations process to upgrade their water filtration system 

plant to be able to handle that increased sediment, which I did. 

They got the money. I would have rather put that money into your 

budget, very frankly. 

It seems to me that when we do not plan ahead, do not have adequate precautions, we are going to pay the bill. We are going to pay 

the bill anyway at a later date. This all comes out of the same taxpayer’s pocket one way or the other. I just think that if we had 

more money through the administration’s request, it would not cost 

us on the other end. It is going to cost, as I understand it, about 

$3 million to stabilize some of the areas around Denver where sediment is already washing down—and will even more after this last 

huge snow begins to melt—and washes into the filtration system. 

I just wanted to pass that on and maybe ask you a couple of questions. 

RECREATION FEE DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

By the way, all the calls we are getting in our offices out West 

are absolutely against that fee demo, making that Fee Demonstration Program permanent. I think most people think, as I do out 

there, that if you are using the land—like you are taking firewood 

or cutting Christmas trees or something of that nature—when you 

take something from it—or filming for profit or something—then it 

is fair to ask them to pay some kind of a fee. But most of the people I talk to out there are absolutely opposed to paying just to go 

out and look at what they think they own as an American citizen 

in a forest. I thought I would pass that on to you. 

WESTERN WATER RIGHTS

Let me ask you just two questions. One deals with water. Out 

West, we are very, very protective of our water, as you might know. 

It goes back to years and years ago. Mark Twain once said that 

whiskey was for drinking, water was for fighting. They still think 

that way out there, as you know. We have this constant struggle 

between those people who believe there is an implied Federal reserved water right and those people who think that all water within a State ought to be adjudicated through the State water courts. 

I would like to know your view on that, because in some cases—

and I know it depends a lot on which administration is in power, 

too—but in some cases the Forest Service has tried to impose bypass flows in our national forest and circumvent working with 

State instream flow programs. I am sure you are aware of that. I 

would like you to give me your view on where you think that is 

going, particularly as we possibly face another drought in the West. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Well, the first thing is that States adjudicate 

water rights. My belief is that people who have water rights, that 

is their water. The State is the organization that determines who 

has those rights. 
24

I also think that, in the end, the way to work with this is in a 

collaborative way to find common ground. The land is not worth 

much if you do not have water on it whether it is private land or 

whether it is public land. So it is important, in my view, that: We 

work together with those folks that hold the water rights; do what 

we can to try to make sure that we are still able to keep the functioning of the streams intact and also meet their needs; but do it 

in a working-together way rather than in a going-to-court or a regulatory way. 

I may be a little bit naive, but I believe that in most cases if you 

really sit down and try to work toward each other’s interests, you 

can find solutions to those problems. 

Senator CAMPBELL. Well, I would like to think so, too. But, as I 

said, sometimes it depends on the administration. It seems to me 

the past administration was hell-bent on usurping State water 

rights in all of our rivers that come through our Western States. 

We had those constant fights. I wanted you to be aware of that. 

FIRE IMPACTS ON WATERSHEDS

Let me just ask maybe one more, and that is: When I think in 

terms of how watersheds are affected by these murderous fires we 

have out now, it would seem to me the Forest Service would get 

ahead of the curve and try to work with municipalities in offering 

some suggestions or recommendations or something before the fires 

start on what precautions they ought to be taking. Do you have 

anything like that in place in the Forest Service? I see Hank is 

nodding his head so you must have something. 

FIREWISE

Mr. BOSWORTH. We have a program called FIREWISE where we 

work with, usually through the State Foresters, the local community in making sure that people have the information to know what 

things they can do on their own property and around their own 

homes. 

WATER FILTRATION PLANTS

Senator CAMPBELL. Yes, I knew of those because I have sat in 

some of those meetings. I meant particularly dealing with water filtration plants and precautions that can be taken by towns to protect their water after a fire. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I guess I am not aware specifically in terms of 

water filtration. We would certainly have some expertise that could 

work with that. We also have some programs, like our Forest Stewardship program under State and Private Forestry, that helps in 

terms of how you manage on private land, how the vegetation is 

managed to help private landowners do things that will keep the 

land in better condition in the event that you have a fire. You 

would not need to deal with the problem in terms of filtration 

through plants. I would be very happy to explore some of our State 

and Private Forestry programs to see whether there are some 

things that can get at that more directly. 

Senator CAMPBELL. Well, I might compliment you on one thing. 

I know in our State—and I think it is probably pretty much like 
25

this in other Western States, too—that Federal and State Foresters 

really work well together. I have done a number of town meetings—the things that we all do—and invited them to come answer 

some questions about it. They really have a very close working relationship and good communication between States and the Federal 

level. 

They are all strapped with the same problem—that is, not having enough resources—but they do have tremendous lines of communication. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Bennett. 

Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

DROUGHT

Again, most of the questions that I am concerned about have 

been asked. You are aware of the fact that we are in the fifth year 

of a drought. It seems hard to realize here in Washington—where 

we have just dug out from under huge amounts of snow and now 

we have rain coming down—but in Utah the conditions are very 

bad. I would hope you would do everything you can. I know you 

are doing everything you can. 

I simply want to underscore that. We are reaching a point where 

we need, not just good stewardship, but we need heroic kinds of 

statements to deal with the challenges of drought. Aside from doing 

a rain dance and making it rain—we will assign that to Senator 

Campbell—I am not quite sure what you can do. 

Senator BURNS. He said it is a matter of timing. 

Senator BENNETT. I see, okay. 

I want to compliment you on the people you have on the ground 

in Utah. We have a good relationship in our office with Forest 

Service personnel in Utah. We very much appreciate their cooperation. Other than that, as I say, all the issues relating to the bark 

beetles and litigation, et cetera, probably have already been covered. 

Senator CAMPBELL. Would the chairman yield? 

Senator BURNS. I would. 

GROUNDED AIR TANKER FLEET

Senator CAMPBELL. I had asked you earlier if you would comment on the tanker fleet, too, that many of us are worried about 

so much, if you could do that. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes. As you know, we had two accidents last 

year where the fatal crashes were air tankers: one was a C–130A 

and the other was a PB4Y. Subsequently, the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Kathleen Clarke, and I commissioned 

a blue ribbon panel. It was a very high-level group of people from 

outside the Forest Service to evaluate our aerial firefighting program. They came back with some recommendations. We are looking 

through those and implementing some of those recommendations. 

But one of the things we have done is, we have grounded the C–

130As and the PB4Ys. We are taking the rest of the large aircraft 

and, working with FAA, have developed an inspection and maintenance program. We are in the process of inspecting those before we 

are going to put them back in service. Once the inspections are 
26

completed, and we find out what kind of maintenance has to be 

done, then we will be able to move forward. 

It is my expectation that we will have retardant aircraft available this year. It may not be at the full level that we had last year. 

We are supplementing the numbers with what we call SEEDS—it 

is a single-engine aircraft as opposed to the larger ones. Then we 

also have—we are looking at more heavy-lift helicopters. 

Senator CAMPBELL. Those will be leases, I guess. You do not own 

any of those. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. That is right. The other part of it is, we need to 

make sure that we are putting those retardant aircraft in the right 

places. What I mean by that is, I think that the best place for 

using those is in the initial attack and extended attack. When you 

get these huge fires—like the Hayman fire, the Rodeo-Chedeski 

fire, and the Missionary Ridge fire—in a lot of cases, heavy-lift helicopters are much more effective in terms of trying to protect private homes. You have seen how big those fires are. You know, 

dropping retardant in a lot of cases is just dropping dollar bills out 

of the aircraft and not doing much more than that. 

We will be prepared this year—maybe not at the full level, as we 

were, but we will be functioning very well. 

Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Domenici. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. 

First let me compliment you on your enthusiasm. I think it could 

be a good year for you and for the Forest Service. I was going to 

ask about your airplanes. You have answered that to my satisfaction. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

I noted from my staff that a couple of weeks ago, in the Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee, you testified there that you expected to be able to put out 98 percent of the fires in 2004. I am 

wondering how you are going to do that. It is our understanding 

you are going to have about half the firefighters you had in 2002. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. What I would like to do first is put a chart up 

here for you to take a look at. I believe you have a copy of it in 

front of you there. It is the chart that shows—if you will notice 

there on the left, the blue circle: That is the total number of fires 

that we had between 1996 and 2001. That is that circle. The little 

pink pie shape in there is 1.8 percent of those fires. That 1.8 percent are those fires that exceed 300 acres. 

So then if you go to the right and you look at the top circle, that 

is our suppression costs. What that shows is that 86 percent of 

those suppression costs came from that little pink wedge on the 

left-hand side. In other words, the 1.8 percent of the fires caused 

86 percent of the costs and 95 percent of the acres burned. The 

idea, then, is to keep that little pink wedge as small as you can 

keep it. If you could keep all fires less than 300 acres, then, of 

course, we could significantly reduce the dollars. 

Now, we are never going to be able to do that, not with drought 

and not with the situation we have with fuels. Our best hope to 

ever do that is by treating fuels. In the long term, there is hope 

that we could even significantly reduce the cost even more. 
27

So, then, our challenge is to look at that balance between suppression costs and preparedness costs to make sure that we have 

enough firefighters to do the initial attack, to keep those fires 

small, but still make sure that we have enough money to fight 

those large fires that we are going to have a certain amount of. 

There are differences of opinion about how much that ought to 

be. For me, the important thing is to have some flexibility to move 

funds back and forth between suppression and preparedness because, again, it depends so much on what the fire season looks like 

when you actually get closer to it. The fiscal year 2003 authority 

provided us that opportunity for 2003. We will see how well that 

works this year. My expectation is that that will help us get the 

right level of preparedness and then still be able to do the job that 

we need in suppression. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, you are saying that you want to try to 

have fewer big fires. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. That is right. We want fewer big fires because 

that is where the cost and that is where the acres are. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, if you can do that, wonderful. We will 

give you some kind of medal if you can do that. 

PROCESS PREDICAMENT

Let me talk just a couple of minutes about the report on process 

predicament. I thank you for reminding me of it. I will review it. 

I am at fault for not having reviewed it if there are things in there 

that we ought to be doing. You have stated that you are going to 

be working to get at some of the predicaments in the process that 

that study revealed. We ought to be doing some of them if they are 

legislative. I hope we will look at them collectively and see what 

we can do. 

If there are any legislative changes in that that stand out to you, 

I would hope you would call it to our attention. We, too, have a responsibility to help you as you try to do that. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Thank you. I would just like to respond very 

quickly if I could. The process predicament write-up does not give 

answers. It just kind of defines a problem. We are trying to work 

together to develop the answers. 

I would like to point out one thing that I have here since we are 

talking about process predicament. The Lolo National Forest had 

fires along with a lot of others in the year 2000. They attempted 

then to do some work, to do some restoration and rehabilitation. I 

would like to point out over here: This is an environmental impact 

statement. This stack here, which is a pretty good size stack of 

stuff—in order for them to do work on 752 acres of soil stabilization, 224 miles of road decommissioning—closing roads—2,172 

acres of timber salvage, 2,377 acres of commercial thinning, and 

12,900 acres of reforestation—in order to do that work, it took this 

environmental impact statement. 

When we got the appeals, if you take this—we have the appeal 

record. That box—12 of those boxes is what it took to transfer the 

appeal record to the regional office from the forest—12 of those 

boxes to do the work on one forest after just one of the many, many 

fires that we had—to do some of the work of restoration and reha-
28

bilitation. That is why I am so focused on trying to deal with this 

process predicament. That is just a huge problem for us. 

Senator DOMENICI. Well, you know, we can just continue on and 

complain, or we can try to do something like you are doing and find 

some of the actual problems. 

STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

I have a personal commitment to myself to try to establish a presentable case for the use of the stewardship contracts. I have a certain entity that I would like to convince in my State that they are 

a good thing. To that end, I have the language of the law. I wonder 

if you could have one of your staff just take a couple of projects 

that have worked, even if they are small—they do not have to be 

in my State, obviously—and just narrate how they start, who gets 

involved, how it proceeds beyond that, and how it ends up—being 

able to accomplish something collectively that is contemplated by 

this new statute. Could you do a couple of those for me, please? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I would be very happy to do that. I could also 

make some people available to go through the whole process of 

what they used. We have some people in my office now who have 

actually done those, as forest supervisors, and who have now transferred into my office. They would be happy to sit down. They have 

done some projects that are very successful. They had a huge 

amount of public support for them. We would be happy to go 

through some of those examples. 

Senator DOMENICI. If you could get me one in writing. If I may—

in New Mexico—want to ask you to send a couple of your people 

with me to show some constituents how it is done. If I could start 

with a written explanation, it would be extremely helpful to me. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I will do that. 

COUNTY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Senator DOMENICI. I have about 8 or 10 questions I am going to 

submit. One of which has to do with asking you whether you will 

continue to handle the so-called county partnership restoration program. Will you continue to work with the counties? There are a 

number of those going. Some of them are working. We do not want 

you to let up on that kind of relationship. Could you just take a 

minute or so and talk about that? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. The way that we are going to get these jobs done 

is through those kinds of partnerships. There are a number of 

projects that I know of that folks are working on, where county 

partnerships are working together, I think, in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado. 

Senator DOMENICI. Right. Lincoln is one, Apache——

Mr. BOSWORTH. Apache-Sitgraves is one, and then the San Juan, 

I believe, is one. 

Senator DOMENICI. Right. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Those folks are working together in that partnership to move forward. 

Now, we have not taken dollars off the top in my office and sent 

funds to those places specifically. We are looking at what kind of 

things we might be able to do in addition to help to make it easier 

for them to do that. 
29

Senator DOMENICI. The only thing we expect you to do is to continue to push those and give your blessings to them so that the 

people know they are for real and that you support them. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I am more than willing to put emphasis, to talk 

it up, and to encourage the regions and the forests to take the dollars that we are giving them, and to work them into those partnership areas. 

The only thing I am reluctant to do—I am trying not to do very 

much of—is take dollars off the top here. I want to get as much 

money out as I can without me taking it off the top. 

Senator DOMENICI. Sure. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. So we have reduced that significantly, but boy—

I am willing to do all the rest of that. 

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Yes, sir. 

WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE

Would you put the last chart that you had up there, sir, please? 

I have a question regarding it. That is a very, very compelling 

chart that you have up there. I would just like to know—up there 

in the big blue circle where you do your circle irrigation up there—

that is what it looks like, does it not? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. It does. 

Senator BURNS. How many of those big fires started—or had 

their origination—started in your wildland-urban interface areas? 

Would you have any idea? Have you ever looked at that? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We can get some information on that. I could not 

tell you just offhand. I am sitting here trying to decide—what I was 

pausing about was whether or not, in my view, most of those would 

be in sort of roaded areas versus the backcountry kind of areas. I 

just do not know. I would have to do some work, particularly—and 

we can do that. I mean, I think you can get the information. We 

will see what we can find and at least figure out whether they are 

in the wildland-urban interface or whether they are in roaded 

versus unroaded areas. 

Senator BURNS. And along with what Senator Domenici had to 

say, it would be good if we could do some kind of a white paper. 

He wants some concrete information that he can take to his communities in New Mexico as far as stewardship is concerned and 

how those are working. 

We also should take a look and see what changes we would have 

to make in the law to facilitate both what we are trying to do on 

the forest, and also take a look and see where the objections are—

how we address those objections or those questions by people who 

would file these appeals—because, no doubt, some of those appeals 

have a legitimate basis. How do we address those in certain circumstances in order to deal with an isolated case? That would help 

us up here. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. That is part of—that is what the Healthy Forests 

Initiative wants to do in large part as well. 

Senator BURNS. That is right. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. So that is why that proposal is out there. 

Senator BURNS. Okay. Well, we sure appreciate your work on 

that. 
30

Senator Stevens, welcome to the committee this morning, the 

chairman of the full committee. We look forward to your—if you 

have a statement you may put it in the record. 

TONGASS TIMBER REFORM ACT

Senator STEVENS. No, I do not have a statement, Mr. Chairman. 

We have four subcommittee meetings this morning. I am trying to 

go to each one. I am sorry to be late here, Mr. Bosworth. I have 

great interest in the Forest Service, as you know. We recently had 

to put a provision in the law to assure that the Tongass Timber 

Reform Act concept was finally approved in the Tongass Land 

Management Plan (TLMP). I hope that you will have no difficulty 

with that. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Not at all. 

Senator STEVENS. Are you all going to be able to observe that 

provision of the law? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We are going to make every effort to do that, 

yes, I believe so. 

Senator STEVENS. I have lived now through too many agreements 

with people over what happens in Alaska. One of them was in the 

Tongass Timber Reform Act. It was the third in a series of agreements we had to reach in order to continue Forest Service operations in Alaska, and harvesting timber. It has now been held up, 

as you know, for about 12 years or more. I hope that we will go 

ahead. 

Mr. Chairman, I am thinking about offering a provision that says 

anyone who challenges those plans must pay the loss of income to 

the people who have suffered by the delay—if they suffered—if 

they prevent going ahead now with the contracts that have been 

in place for so long, as far as harvesting Alaska timber. 

These people, who are just professional protesters in the legal 

profession, do nothing but file lawsuits in order to raise more 

money. The contributions go to a foundation they form themselves. 

They pay themselves and they have no downside when they lose. 

I think we have got to find some way to prevent people from holding up the harvesting of timber under a plan such as—I do not 

know if you know it—I opposed TLMP when it first came out. By 

the time it has gone through 12 years, I have no alternative but 

to support it. 

I do hope we can find some way to make certain it goes—I notice 

from your resume you never served in Alaska, Mr. Bosworth. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. I have never served in Alaska. I have been in a 

number of regions. I have been to Alaska a number of times. I 

spent a week there last year trying to gain a better understanding 

of the issues. There are some real challenges there. There are also 

some very good—we have some very good employees there. They 

are working hard. 

Senator STEVENS. Well, we would invite you to come up, because, 

you know, some things that may work elsewhere, such as backfires 

and other things, can really cause holocausts in our State. I think 

it takes someone with firm professional experience to oversee operations on a day-to-day basis up there. 
31

BEETLE KILL ON THE KENAI PENINSULA

I went with Senator Domenici when they had those terrible fires 

out in his area. I could hardly believe them. We have now—I am 

told we have over 3 million acres of beetle kill on Federal lands 

that are in the vicinity of our major city of Anchorage, and coming 

up—that is the Kenai Peninsula, up towards the Matanuska Valley 

in Alaska. The beetle kill is substantial. 

I hope that under the President’s new program that we can take 

some steps to try to thin out some of those dead trees so they do 

not provide the fuel for fires such as we have had before in that 

area. Beetle kill—I have flown over the forests when they are burning. The sinuosity of the fire follows the dead trees in our area. 

They just end up by consuming an enormous acreage of forest because the trees that are dead, because of the infestation, have not 

been removed. 

I hope you will look at a plan to try and remove some of those 

dead trees. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Actually, when I was up visiting there last summer, I did get up in the Kenai. I did look at some of the area where 

the spruce is dead. It is a huge problem. I certainly agree with you. 

A lot of that is private land. Some of that is national forest. We 

are working through our State and Private Forestry program with 

private landowners. We are then trying to do as much as we can 

on the national forest as well. 

One of the successful programs I think also is the FIREWISE 

program there on the Kenai. We are working with those folks, the 

actual homeowners, helping them find ways that they can make 

their homes safer from fire. I appreciate your support and your attention on that. 

ALASKA JURISDICTIONAL PROBLEMS

Senator STEVENS. You are right, it is a checkerboard of Federal 

ownership. Part of it is a wildlife refuge, for instance, and the forest surrounds that. The wildlife refuge was actually carved out of 

national forest lands in the past. There are enormous problems jurisdictionally between the two Federal agencies in determining how 

to deal with fires in the peninsula. In the final analysis, you know, 

we have less than 2 percent of our land in private ownership. It 

is all surrounded by Federal or State land. If Federal and State 

people do not fight their fires, the people who suffer the most are 

the people who have the inholdings, so to speak, that are involved 

in those areas of heavy forestation. 

Southeastern Alaska, I am sure you saw, because of its rainfall, 

does not have as much difficulty. But it has been drier this year, 

too. We are going to have enormous fires if we do not get prepared 

for them. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Again, my belief is that the solution is both fuels 

treatment and working together between State, Federal, local jurisdictions, and working with homeowners. We can do that by working together to make a big difference. That is an important part of 

the National Fire Plan. 
32

ALASKA FOREST TRIP BY AIR

Senator STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, once in the past I got the cooperation of the Department of Defense. We took one of the enormous passenger planes from the military. We went through the forested area of our State. We had helicopters and National Guard 

standing by to take people, Senators and staff, out to look at these 

areas of really great risk to everybody. That is 15 years ago now. 

I am not sure there are many people around here that made that 

trip. 

I would like to suggest to you that we try to organize a trip to 

go up there. It only takes a weekend, really. I think we should go 

up. We should ask Mr. Bosworth and some of his staff to go along. 

You just have to view it in totality. These are the two largest forests in the United States. Beyond that are millions of acres of 

forestland that is owned by the Federal Government. There is just 

not proper stewardship of handling the problem of infestation of 

the timber in particular. 

I do not want to belabor it. I urge you to think about it. I think 

that is a fantastic legacy for the future. I think the day will come 

when we will be compelled to resume harvesting that timber. We 

could have harvested that timber on a 103-, 104-year cutting cycle, 

using only 10 percent of the forest, and supplied better than 450 

million board feet forever. That has been challenged and cut back. 

As you know, we are down now last year to 34 million board feet. 

The year that I came to the Senate, the harvest was 1.5 billion 

board feet. We still only cut—in the history of man, we have cut 

3 percent of the forest. It does not make any sense what happened. 

I think more people in the Senate, and more of your people, need 

to be exposed to the whole of the totality of forest areas in Alaska 

in order to make sure we have a sound policy. 

I appreciate what you are doing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for coming by. I noted, 

Senator, that he said he had spent 1 week up there last year in 

your forest. I spent 1 night up there that turned into 1 week. 

You know how that is. He raises a very legitimate question, 

though, I will tell you that. 

NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING

There are a couple of things I want to ask you about, and then—

forest plans, money to—we understand that they are incredibly 

costly, to do forest plans. Are you on schedule to do, redo forest 

plans—we have some coming up, I understand—especially when it 

has taken us 5 to 6 years to prepare one of those things. How are 

we on that schedule of redoing some of the forest plans? 

Mr. BOSWORTH. We are behind in terms of—you know—we are 

supposed to have our plans done—they are supposed to be revised 

every 10 to 15 years, 15 being the outside. We have a number of 

forest plans that are 15 years and beyond. 

The important thing, I think, is our attempt to update the planning rule and, frankly, to modernize the planning rule. The way it 

has been—the last time it was done was back in the early 1980s 

and then, of course, in 2000. The problem with the 2000 planning 

rule is that it would cost us an estimated $12 million per forest 
33

plan to do a revision. It would take several years—I mean, probably more than what it has taken under the old rule. It is my 

strong desire to get the timeframe down to just a couple of years. 

I also have a belief that the only people that can be involved in 

forest planning, when it takes you 8 or 9 years, are those who are 

being paid to be involved. But the person who just cares—the person who likes to go hunting or fishing, or the person who wants 

to go camping—they cannot stay with it for 8 years and work with 

us for 8 years along with everybody else. So if we really want to 

work with the public in a collaborative way on how their forests 

are going to be managed, we have to get that timeframe down to 

just 2 years or 3 at the max. 

That is what our proposed planning rule would do, I am hoping 

and expecting. If it does, then I think we can make a huge difference, reduce costs, and get caught up. 

Senator BURNS. The same thing on grazing permits? 

RANGE MANAGEMENT

Mr. BOSWORTH. In the 2004 President’s budget we are increasing 

the amount for Range that would—I will have Hank give you the 

dollars—that would increase the number of allotments that we 

could get under NEPA by about 30 percent, I believe. Can you give 

him the figures specifically, Hank? 

Mr. KASHDAN. Yes. 

Senator BURNS. Turn your microphone around there, Henry. 

Mr. KASHDAN. Mr. Chairman, the grazing increase of $7.3 million, compared to the President’s budget, would enable us to do 33 

percent more allotments and get them under decision notices than 

we had been able to do in 2002. You would still continue to have 

the backlog issues. 

Senator BURNS. You still would, okay. That goes hand in hand, 

I think, with the forest plans and the grazing permits. All this is 

linked together, the invasive weeds, these forest plans, grazing permits. 

NOXIOUS WEEDS MANAGEMENT

Now, if you think just getting rid of weeds, that helps, especially 

in sheep. Now, cattle not so much. The cows will not eat that stuff. 

Sheep will. Doing these grazing permits is very, very important not 

only from a weed standpoint, but also in our fire management. 

Where we had grazing, we do not have those really hot fires. 

That excess grass and undergrowth is—and sheep browse—that is 

all taken away. It is part of fuels reduction. It does not hurt the 

land. We can do that—not using tax dollars—to remove some of 

those undesirable things that we think that are on our forests—

such as weed management—and that costs—and also fuels reduction. 

There are some natural harvesters out here that will help us 

manage our forests. I do not know why we are not using those 

tools. Any other person who is in charge of managing—just like I 

said: The old equation of sun, water, and soil—and using those resources—and knowing how to use those resources. 

Now, does it work on every forest? No, it does not. That is why 

we cannot write a law that one size fits everything. It just does not. 
34

There are circumstances. There are growing seasons. There are 

variables in moisture, a lot of variables, that we have to take into 

account. It takes a really experienced person to understand what 

forest I am managing and what practices work, and what practices 

do not work. That is why it just has to happen that way. 

You can take every ranch in the State of Montana—and Dale, 

you know this as well as anybody else—and no two ranches are 

alike. They may lie right next to one another. How you manage it; 

how you take care of it; how you make it produce—but I will tell 

you, I bet the guy that has lived there for a generation-and-a-half 

or two generations—they know how to manage it. The next guy 

comes by and he buys it—he changes everything—he learns pretty 

quick—some things work and some things do not work. 

By the way, I called the Park Service up. I had a way to get that 

guy on that John Deere tractor out of that puddle but they did not 

take my advice down there. 

Just comment on that, then. I think those issues really link together. I would help us to complete as much of this as we can. That 

really enables us to deal with some of the problems we have, this 

management problem. 

LEAFY SPURGE

Mr. BOSWORTH. I would like to say something, first, about leafy 

spurge up there. I did not respond to it when Senator Dorgan was 

here. I know what leafy spurge is. It is a huge problem. Springtime, as you know—it will have yellow flowers on it. Most leafy 

spurge that has been there for a while will have a root system that 

is 20 and 30 feet deep. 

Senator BURNS. That is right. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. You cannot pull it out when it is 20 or 30 feet 

deep. You can pull it and break it but it just pops right back up 

again. You can do some things with grazing. Both goats and sheep 

will eat it. We have even tried in some places to contract with 

goats to pay, in other words, to graze, to try to eradicate leafy 

spurge. 

We are also making some progress on leafy spurge with wasps, 

the bugs that are natural enemies to it. 

Senator BURNS. Doing work at Sidney, Montana. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Yes, that is correct, and at a couple of other 

places along the Smith River we are working with it, too. 

INVASIVE SPECIES

I will tell you, I am so convinced that invasive species—which 

would be insects, diseases, and weeds—are probably one of the biggest threats to our national forests and grasslands that there is, 

and not just to the national forests but the Nation’s forests and 

grasslands. I mean, it is a huge problem. Our country spends a lot 

of money every year trying to deal with invasive species—either insects, diseases, or weeds—and I will be very happy to work with 

you to try to improve our program and to do it better. But it has 

to be integrated, like you say. 

Senator BURNS. Right. 
35

Mr. BOSWORTH. When we have fires, when we have wildfires, we 

end up with a spread of—knapweed, for example, in the Bitterroot 

Valley. After those fires, we just had bumper crops of——

Senator BURNS. Knap. 

Mr. BOSWORTH [continuing]. Of knapweed, yes. That is one of the 

problems that you have in many places in the West now. When we 

have fire, whether it is a prescribed burn or whether it is a natural 

fire, we have got to be doing something about weeds right after the 

fire because there are so many of them. 

But again, to me it is essential that this be integrated between 

the fire, between the insects, between the diseases, between the 

weeds, and that our management work on all parts of those together. It is critical. 

Senator BURNS. I do not know whether you have had the opportunity to visit with Packy Burns yet—no relation—no relation. She 

lives at Big Timber. They run sheep in the Big Timber area. She 

contracts out to private lands and also permittees. She takes her 

bands of sheep wherever she is contracted. They pay her to come 

in and do it. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. No, I have not met her. 

Senator BURNS. Well, you ought to meet her. She is a very interesting woman and, of course, I knew her old father-in-law many 

years ago. He had sheep and cattle in the big sheep and timber 

area. We used to do a lot of business in Sweet Grass County. 

We thank you for your testimony today. I just want to say publicly, I remember that when you came to this office I had the feeling that we made the right choice, that the President made the 

right choice to put you in charge of the Forest Service. You sure 

have not been a disappointment. I just want to congratulate you on 

the work that you are doing. 

We are not going to agree on everything. No people do. Differences of opinion are what make the country go. Generally, 

though, when I talk to your people who are on the ground, morale 

is very good. You are to be complimented on putting some people 

around the forests. I think that are doing as good a job as they can 

possibly do under the conditions they have to do them. 

So thank you for coming this morning. We are willing to work 

with you on funding those areas—that white paper on what we can 

do on stewardship, how we make it work, and how we make it 

work for everybody in America. Thank you for coming this morning. 

Mr. BOSWORTH. Thank you, and thank you for those comments. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator BURNS. There will be some additional questions which 

will be submitted for your response in the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE DOMENICI

COUNTY PARTNERSHIP RESTORATION

Question. Chief Bosworth, I know that last year you made efforts to ensure the 

Lincoln, Apache-Sitgreaves, and GMUG National Forest received funding to work 
36

with County Partner Restoration Projects to help reduce hazardous fuels loads in 

Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. 

I am told that last year, before you had to pull back funding to pay for fiscal year 

2002 fire fighting, that about $1 million was slated to be expended on these three 

forests for this type of work. How much funding should we anticipate will be slated 

for these three forests this year? 

Answer. The following table displays Hazardous Fuels, Forest Health, and Vegetation/Watershed funds committed to the County Partner Restoration projects for 

the three forests in fiscal year 2003:

Lincoln NF ApacheSeagraves NF GMUG NF’s Total by BLI 

Hazardous Fuels ........................................................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) $90,000 $90,000

Forest Health ................................................................................ ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 33,000 33,000

Veg/Watershed .............................................................................. $330,000 $305,000 ( 1 ) 635,000

Total by Forest ................................................................ 330,000 305,000 123,000 758,000

1 None. 

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE

Question. Chief Bosworth, I note Deferred Maintenance/Infrastructure Improvements is down $50.9 Million from the fiscal year 2003 request of $50.9 Million. In 

fiscal year 2002 we funded this line Item at $61 Million. 

With your current budget, are you able to fully manage and maintain the ecosystem health of the lands that are already entrusted to the Forest Service? Please 

provide a yes or no answer? 

Answer. No. However, the Agency’s efforts will be to focus on the critical high priority work. Limited resources and combined with a multitude of resource management issues at the ecosystem level on the 191 million acre National Forest System 

requires the careful balancing of funding priorities reflected in the fiscal year 2004 

Budget. Within the Capital Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, the 

focus is on addressing the critical deferred maintenance health & safety items deferred maintenance backlog. 

Question. Specifically, which programs will not be funded at amounts called for 

in the Forest Plans, as a result of the fiscal year 2004 budget request? 

Answer. Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (or Forest Plans) do not 

identify specific funding needs for an individual program in a given year. Forest 

Plans are the result of completing the middle-level of the agency’s 3-tiered planning 

process. They are programmatic documents that tier from the agency’s strategic 

plan and establish a framework for identifying, planning and implementing projects 

designed to achieve Forest and agency objectives. 

Program funding needs for a fiscal year are determined based on a combination 

of factors, including the results of project level planning within each program. The 

agency identifies various combinations of programmatic needs in its budget submission that are designed to address different sets of goals, objectives, and budget constraints. Reduced funding in any program will result in less work being accomplished on the ground and potentially lengthen the time it takes Forests to achieve 

their Plan objectives and the agency to achieve its strategic objectives. 

Question. I also note that there are a significant number of insect and disease outbreaks that are not being sanitized or salvaged. Would you provide me an explanation of the relative priority given to treating these outbreaks as compared to completing deferred maintenance? 

Answer. The President’s Budget provides a balanced program to meet forest 

health protection and deferred maintenance/infrastructure improvement needs. 

VIBRANT FOREST AND RANGE BASED ECONOMY

Question. Give me a list of the legislative changes that you need to ensure you 

can implement the National Fire Plan, not only in a safe and effective manner but 

also in a manner that is environmentally acceptable? 

Answer. If Healthy Forest legislation is enacted, we don’t anticipate a need for 

other legislative action. We are in the process of establishing and implementing several Healthy Forest related administrative actions that will enable the Forest Service to safely and more effectively implement the National Fire Plan. We will keep 

you informed of any change in circumstances. 
37

FIRE PREPAREDNESS

Question. Chief, a couple of weeks ago you testified to the Energy and Natural 

Resources Committee that you expect to be able to put out 98 percent of the fires 

that start in fiscal year 2004. I am wondering how you will accomplish this with 

half as many fire fighters as you had in 2002? 

Answer. Preparedness funding was at an all-time high in 2001, the first year of 

the National Fire Plan. This included significant funds for one-time purchases of 

heavy equipment including engines and dozers to reach a maximal readiness level. 

While of that equipment will have to be replaced someday, annual investments 

needs not be maintained at the 2001 level. 

In 2002, fire readiness proved to be as good as or better than ever. Ninety-nine 

percent of wildfires on Forest Service-managed lands were controlled on initial attack. Preparedness funding in the fiscal year 2004 is $9 million higher than fiscal 

year 2003 request. Preparedness funding will be targeted in 2003 and 2004 to maintain the agency preparedness at the highest level possible, with resources being positioned in the area of extreme fire danger. In addition, resources will be moved 

throughout the fire season to areas in need. If 2004 is another severe fire season, 

the fire program has the flexibility to augment Preparedness funding with ‘‘severity’’ 

funds from the suppression account to fund the placement of additional resources 

in the areas most at risk from catastrophic wildfires in order to maintain sufficient 

readiness and initial attack capability. 

Unfortunately, no amount of preparedness can prevent all fires from escaping to 

levels requiring extended fire suppression. When fires become large, the costs to 

contain them become large as well. The rise in the 10-year average recognizes the 

long-term trend in fire frequency and severity. Even so, even that increase falls 

below the costs of the past three years. We consider it prudent to maintain a funding level based on the 10-year average. Anything less would seem shortsighted given 

what we know today. 

I have directed the Regional Foresters to use funds for the purpose of attaining 

preparedness levels that are similar to fiscal year 2002. The following table displays 

a comparison of what we plan to provide in fiscal year 2003 versus 2003.

Resource type 

Fiscal year 

2003 planned 2002 actual 2003 base 

Firefighters ............................................................................................................. 10,480 6,008 10,480

Prevention Techs .................................................................................................... 403 296 332

Engines .................................................................................................................. 995 700 1,072

Forest Helicopters .................................................................................................. 75 57 87

National Helicopters ............................................................................................... 7 8 8

Smokejumpers ........................................................................................................ 277 277 277

Type I Crews .......................................................................................................... 65 65 65

Airtankers ............................................................................................................... 41 33 33

Question. I also see that you have grounded 11 heavy slurry bombers and 11 of 

19 of your Beech Craft lead planes. Half as many fire fighters, half your lead planes 

gone, and quarter of your slurry bombers out of commission. Please provide specific 

steps that you have taken to make up the 50 percent reduction in fire fighters and 

the grounding of these aircraft? 

Answer. We have some concern about the loss of 11 large airtankers but feel we 

have several alternatives available to us that will mitigate the effect of losing this 

capability. In our 2003 Fire Operations planning we are instructing Incident Commanders to shift the emphasis of the airtanker fleet to initial attack rather than 

large fire support. We will shift suppression tactics from those that require close air 

support to those that do not require such close support (direct fireline construction 

versus more indirect). This may cause a marginal increase in total burned acres but 

not enough to be significant. We will add contract helicopters with aerial suppressant capability to help offset the loss of the airtankers. Finally, we will add as many 

as 11 Single Engine Airtankers (SEATS) to help with local initial attack. In a normal year, these alternatives will allow us to effectively suppress wildland fire without compromising safety, burned acres, and program costs. 

STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

Question. Chief, you advocated for stewardship contracting while you were in Region One. Can you tell us how that worked in Region One and how you see using 
38

Stewardship Contracting in New Mexico? Specifically, what type of projects are you 

thinking about implementing in New Mexico under this program? 

Answer. The demonstration pilot authority for stewardship contracting in the 

Northern Region (Region 1) has shown that some projects are better able to get 

needed work done in an area than what could be accomplished using a timber sale. 

In the Southwestern Region (Region 3), the Cibola National Forest is currently 

working on an existing stewardship contract on the Mt. Taylor Ranger District, and 

has also started to work on a new one using the new authorities on the Mountainair 

Ranger District. The Mt. Taylor Ranger District is also working on a new environmental impact statement that is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2004 and 

is currently planned to be implemented through a stewardship contract. In addition, 

the Lincoln National Forest and the Santa Fe National Forest have stewardship 

contracts that will be completed by the end of the current calendar year. All the 

National Forests in New Mexico are looking at stewardship contracting opportunities and are interested in completing projects with this new authority. 

INSECTS AND DISEASE

Question. As you know we have a large area of forest that is being devastated 

by bark beetles in Northern New Mexico. This has been on going for several years 

and is likely to continue and spread due to the drought. 

Can you tell me the specific steps the National Forests in New Mexico are taking 

to combat these insects and stop the spread of the outbreaks? 

Answer. Severe drought conditions and overcrowding have weakened many trees 

in New Mexico, including those on the National Forests. These weakened trees are 

now being attacked and killed by native bark beetles. Pin ̃ on and ponderosa pines 

are most severely affected. Large scale control measures to stop the beetle outbreaks 

are not feasible. However, spraying of 55 high-value trees to protect them from attack was completed in two campgrounds on the Santa Fe National Forest in March 

2003. Thinning to enhance tree vigor is planned for those and several additional developed recreation sites on the Santa Fe National Forest. The thinning is scheduled 

to begin in the fall, when cutting activities are less likely to attract bark beetles. 

Thinning currently underway on the Santa Fe Watershed includes mastication, or 

shredding, of woody debris, rendering it unsuitable for bark beetle breeding. A pine 

bark beetle strategic communication plan is being utilized to provide the public with 

information about bark beetle activity, management, and impacts. A bark beetle 

website has been developed to provide information online: http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health/index.shtml 

Information has been provided in the form of presentations to adults and children, 

in articles, responses to phone and internet questions, and dissemination of literature. An informal interagency bark beetle meeting was held at the FS Southwestern Regional Office on June 24, 2003 to discuss bark beetle impacts and explore 

opportunities for information-sharing and coordination. In attendance were representatives from the Forest Service, the BLM, the BIA, and the NM State Forestry 

Division. A follow-up meeting is planned. The Southwestern Region is participating 

in a Forest Service interregional pin ̃ on mortality assessment which includes supplemental aerial surveys of pin ̃ on-juniper woodlands over about 2 million acres in NM. 

Ground crews will also be collecting field data. Surveyed lands will be across all 

ownerships and will cover about 22 percent of the pin ̃ on-juniper woodlands which 

exist in New Mexico. The Forest Service solicited input from State and federal agencies to delineate priority areas of private and public lands to be surveyed. Traps to 

monitor the pin ̃ on ips spring emergence, number of generations produced per year, 

and onset of hibernation have been placed in six locations across New Mexico to aid 

in our understanding of this insect’s behavior. 

Question. Also specifically, what steps you are taking on each forest to remove 

this dead timber before it provides the fuel for another catastrophic fire? 

Answer. The mortality in northern New Mexico is primarily occurring in pinyon 

pine in the pinyon-juniper woodlands. This mortality is at the higher elevations, and 

is quite scattered. Because most of the mortality is pinyon pine, very little salvage 

is occurring, aside from firewood gathering. Most Forests do treat areas where personal use firewood gathering occurs, but they are not planning on doing any largescale salvage to combat bark beetle outbreaks. All Forests are continuing to encourage salvage removal where trees are accessible. Some thinning is occurring around 

Las Alamos using FEMA fuels reduction dollars. The state also has a fuels reduction program on private lands, where most of the pinyon pine mortality has occurred. However, pinyon pine infected by the ips beetle decomposes rapidly, and 

after one season is no longer useful as fuelwood. 
39

As long as the dead needles remain on the trees, there is an increased risk of fire 

ignition. However, once the needles fall, the fire hazard for defoliated standing dead 

trees is less than for standing green trees. Needle fall can take as little as 6 months 

in pinyon pine or as much as 2 years in ponderosa pine. The only way a fire in a 

pinyon-juniper stand will advance is with a sustained stiff wind, because many of 

the high mortality sites have almost no understory vegetation and are quite rocky. 

Forests have begun using the new timber salvage categorical exclusion authority 

so that our removal efforts can be focused in a timely manner to remove the material that is still useful. This authority allows Ranger Districts to treat larger areas 

and create effective barriers at key points on the Forest. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL

Question. Last year’s fires were not helped by the fact that Colorado and much 

of the West was and still is experiencing the worst drought on record. As you know, 

catastrophic wildfires can have catastrophic effects on watersheds where communities located below the National Forest boundary get their water. Many communities are concerned about the threat of ash and sediment from wildfires clogging 

their ditches, reservoirs, and drinking water intakes in the middle of this drought. 

I would be interested to learn a little more about how the Forest Service is working with local communities to guard against future water contamination due to fires, 

as well as what they are doing now to rehabilitate those affected watersheds. I’m 

sure that the Forest Service really appreciates the effects fire has on existing municipal water supplies and is willing to work with the state. 

Answer. Prevention.—The agency’s first efforts are directed towards reducing the 

risk of catastrophic wildfire occurrence. The National Fire Plan and the President’s 

Healthy Forests Initiative provide the agency with strategic guidance for implementing this goal. In close cooperation with the Department of Interior, states, local 

governments, and communities, the Forest Service is working to reduce hazardous 

fuels accumulation, and to manage wildland/urban interface forests to be more resistant to catastrophic wildfires. In spite of a very challenging fire suppression season, the Forest Service reduced hazardous fuels on 1.3 million acres in fiscal year 

2002. 

Stabilization.—Before a catastrophic wildfire has been extinguished, the agency 

quickly mobilizes Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) teams to assess environmental degradation. Water quality and flood potential are prime considerations. 

The team establishes objectives for protecting water resources and prescribes needed 

actions. Treatments may continue up to a year after the fire, and monitoring of affected watersheds continue for up to three years. 

In 2002, the Forest Service conducted 130 BAER assessments, authorizing $70 

million of emergency stabilization work. $47.7 million was obligated in fiscal year 

2002. These projects will treat 136,000 acres of severely burned land, of which about 

90,000 acres were treated before the winter snows. Typical emergency actions include stabilizing slopes with log structures, straw wattles, and straw mulch, installing larger culverts to handle increased water flows, and seeding burned areas. Communities are protected from flood by installation of flood warning systems and construction of impoundments to reduce peak flows. 

The Hayman Fire stabilization work illustrates the types of accomplishments 

achieved through BAER team efforts. Hayman Fire BAER treatments cost $24 million of the $70 million authorized in fiscal year 2002, resulting in the following accomplishments: 

ASSESSMENT OF THREAT

Sedimentation of a major water supply reservoir: Post fire erosion into Cheesman 

Reservoir may exceed 1 million tons in the first year if storms of 1 inch per day 

occur. 

ESTABLISHMENT OF EMERGENCY TREATMENT OBJECTIVE

Reduce impacts to the Denver water supply reservoirs and the water quality-listed streams. 

Reduce erosion by establishing ground cover and increasing infiltration by scarifying the soil surface. 

Hayman BAER treatments in this emergency phase have been aimed at re-establishing the vegetative cover lost in the fire. Ground cover holds the soil in place, 

allows absorption of water into the ground, minimizes runoff, reproduces wildlife 

habitat and generally rejuvenates the area. Often, soils in fire areas where high in-
40

tensity burn occurs become water repellent, and the hardened surface must be broken up by scarification, or raking, as part of the treatment. 

AERIAL OPERATIONS

Application of hydro-mulch (recycled wood fiber, grass seed, water and a binding 

agent) has been applied via helicopter on 1,569 acres of heavily burned slope. This 

work was completed in September 2002. 

Aerial seeding is complete on over 19,835 acres. The seed mix is an annual cereal 

rye mixture, which will germinate readily and persist for two to three years to provide ground cover until the native grasses and forbs come back. 

Approximately 6,000 acres have been treated as part of an aerial dry mulching 

project (applying straw to burned slopes via helicopter) during September 2002. 

Straw is applied over previously seeded areas. The straw helps to minimize erosion 

during rains, and provides necessary moisture and shade for quicker seed germination. 

GROUND OPERATIONS

Seeding and scarification (raking the soil) has been completed on 13,800 acres. 

Hydro-mulch is being applied by truck to 1,500 acres along Forest Roads and 

highways, 300 feet on either side of 25 miles of designated roads. Work was completed in October 2002. 

Many private landowners in the burn area have been contacted to assess risks 

from adjacent National Forest lands. BAER is working with Natural Resource Conservation Service to formulate and implement rehabilitation plans with landowners. 

Culverts and stream crossings within the burn area are being cleaned and reinforced to prevent washout along roads. Grading and reconditioning of the roads 

within the fire area is ongoing. 

The Lake George Community Park has been demobilized, and the grounds within 

and around the camp are being rehabilitated. The roads at the Lake George Community Park have been graded and reconditioned. The area used for the fire camp 

is being seeded and straw mulch is being applied. The park has been reopened for 

public use. 

Treatment of noxious weeds is complete on 340 acres within and adjacent to the 

fire area. 

An archaeological assessment and clearance of all areas where BAER treatment 

will create ground disturbance has been achieved. Two sites within the fire area 

were identified as needing protection using straw-bale check-dams, which have been 

completed. 

Remote Area Weather Stations (RAWS) have been installed in and around the fire 

area. This will facilitate early detection of rainfall for public evacuation and emergency warnings when needed. 

Additional details on accomplishments at the Hayman fire are available at 

www.fs.fed.us/r2/psicc/hayres/baer/index.htm. 

Rehabilitation.—Efforts to repair damage caused by the fire begins as soon as the 

fire is out, and focus on lands unlikely to quickly recover from fire damage through 

natural processes. In fiscal year 2002, the Forest Service implemented 518 projects 

costing $35.8 million. These projects treated 435,000 acres of severely burned land 

through invasive plant control, seeding, planting, and watershed improvements on 

federal lands. Additional work was accomplished on trail reconstruction, roadwork, 

riparian enhancement, fencing and boundary line location. 

Communities are included in rehabilitation efforts. In June 2002, the Hayman Recovery Assistance Center (HayRAC) was established in Castle Rock, to aid victims 

of the Hayman Fire. This recovery assistance center provided representatives from 

state, federal and non-profit agencies who provided information on financial, 

logistical, human services, and fire rehabilitation techniques to citizens and businesses directly impacted by the Hayman Fire. The center served as a central source 

of information during and after the fire, providing a mechanism to coordinate interagency restoration and recovery efforts with the community, collaborating on short 

and long-term restoration needs, and coordination and facilitating volunteer programs to support community and forest restoration efforts. In 2002, HayRAC coordinated 55 volunteer projects, with more than 3,000 volunteers, for about 22,000 volunteer hours, and responded to about 1,600 phone calls for fire recovery assistance. 

Question. Recognizing the drought conditions that the West, in particular, is facing, I think that it is more important than ever for the Forest Service to commit 

to work with the states in good faith on water issues. Unfortunately, some in the 

Forest Service have tried to impose bypass flows in our national forests, and circumvent working through state instream flow programs. You are aware that bypass 
41

flows are estimated to cause a reduction in the dry-year water supplies available 

from water facilities on National Forest lands by 50 to 80 percent? 

Answer. There are numerous permitted water storage and transmission facilities 

on National Forest lands in the west. Some of these authorizations have clauses 

that allow for temporary changes to authorization conditions during times of 

drought or emergency. Prior to last year these drought clauses had generally not 

been invoked, and many were undefined. In 2002, we worked actively with Denver 

Water, and others to modify authorization terms and conditions to allow for needed 

flexibility in operation during the drought. We will continue to work with facility 

managers and water providers in 2003 to meet changing storage and operation 

needs that have resulted from the drought. 

Question. Isn’t the Forest Service’s official policy to work with the states, pursuant to state law in administering water? Can I tell city officials in Colorado, as well 

as farmers and ranchers, that you, and the Forest Service in general, are committed 

to working through the state instream flow program and eliminating the perception 

of threats to existing water supplies by imposing bypass flows? 

Answer. The Forest Service has, and will continue, to work with states, tribal governments, water users, and any interested parties in resolving water issues on National Forest System lands in accordance with both federal and state laws. The 

State of Colorado’s instream flow program falls short of meeting the needs of the 

United States in the matter of in-stream flow protection for federal purposes, such 

as, but not limited to, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and habitat for 

aquatic species listed under the Endangered Species Act. In other western states, 

the Forest Service does participate in state in-stream flow programs where its water 

needs can be met with reasonable legal certainty. The Forest Service has been very 

judicious about requiring instream flow conditions in its land use occupancy permits 

and easements, and will continue to unilaterally require bypass flows as a last resort when other options to sustain aquatic resource values have failed. 

Question. Colorado experienced its worst fire season on record last summer. My 

compliments go to the brave men and women who risked their lives to fight these 

fires. We also learned some lessons last summer and maybe you can tell me what 

adjustments we are making in anticipation of this year’s fire season. 

Particularly, how do we use our local resources in suppression operations? 

Answer. We use predictive services and monitor local conditions to adjust resource 

locations so that new starts can be suppressed quickly. If we can respond to these 

new starts and suppress them within 24 hours, we can minimize their cost. 

Wildland fires that resist suppression efforts typically transition from a small, inexpensive event to something larger and more expensive within the first 24–48 hours 

of the event start. We emphasize and concentrate on aggressive initial attack to 

minimize large fire occurrence. It’s not a question of what we can do better during 

the first 72 hours of an event. Our firefighters are very successful in initial attack. 

During the fiscal year 2002 fire season, they caught more than 99 percent of all unplanned and unwanted wildland fires during initial attack. What we need to do is 

continue to support the initial attack force by maintaining training curriculums, 

providing quality equipment, develop the lessons learned program, and maintaining 

coordination and intelligence systems. 

Question. How do we follow up with our communities to make sure we are reducing the risk? 

Answer. Local project managers carry out project monitoring. Project plans for 

treatments on National Forest lands adjacent to communities typically include specific objectives for addressing risk to the community. Appropriate project follow up 

includes assessment of how well project objectives have been met. Such project monitoring is the responsibility of the District Ranger. Federal financial and technical 

assistance, provided in conjunction with the efforts of State Foresters and other 

state, local, or tribal governments, will be increasingly focused upon the optimal reduction of the risk posed by catastrophic wildfires, particularly in the wildlandurban interface. In these efforts, communities, non-government organizations, and 

private landowners also have a key responsibility. In most cases such projects are 

developed using project planning standards similar to those used by the Federal 

agencies. Project plans establish risk reduction objectives. Federal agency grant administration includes spot reviews of projects to establish effectiveness of projects 

delivered by State Foresters or other grant recipients. Success may be judged by a 

measured change in the vegetation condition class or by simply a reduction from a 

high risk ranking to a moderate or low risk based on the rating system applied for 

the area. 

Question. One other thing, with the drought and the forest conditions what can 

we do better during the first 72 hours of a fire? 
42

Answer. After the 2002 fire season, the Forest Service reviewed lessons learned, 

after action assessments, and formal program reviews to develop new direction, clarify existing direction, and communicate expectations of line officers and Incident 

Commanders. These considerations manifested themselves in a Fire and Aviation 

Operations Action Plan for the 2003 fire season. This plan emphasizes four areas 

(Preparedness, cost containment, hazardous fuel treatment, and safety) of the Fire 

and Aviation Management program where I expect improved performance from the 

line officers, Incident Commanders, and other personnel involved in the conduct of 

operations in these areas. The plan seeks to improve fiscal integrity and reflects important performance measures. 

Specific to your question, initial attack and extended attack are the number one 

mobilization priority. We will continue to use predictive services, anticipate threats, 

and pre-position protection resources to those local areas that may need additional 

resources. Our first priority will be to maintain sufficient local initial attack resources to maximize our ability to staff new fire starts. Our second priority will be 

large fire support. These actions will continue to allow us to minimize the number 

of fires that grow large and require a larger response. 

Question. I wanted to mention to you the National Forest County Partnership 

Restoration program. This pilot program is an example of how restoration programs 

can be led by communities as Congress had requested. 

As I understand it from the restoration program that serves the area I live in 

down in southwestern Colorado, funding for the three partnerships that were created has not reached those who need it. 

Could you give me your views on this program and what is being done to fund 

it? 

Answer. The Forest Service supports the collaborative approach in the development of restoration programs. Funding for restoration programs should be developed 

through the normal budget process. 

This program involves a total of three forests, two forests in R–3, the ApacheSitgreaves NF in AZ and the Lincoln NF in NM, and one forest in R–2, the Grand 

Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison (GMUG) NF in CO. The program is a multi-year 

collaborative partnership between the Forest Service and County governments for 

large-scale landscape restoration utilizing an adaptive management process. It will 

test streamlined processes in administration, contracting, planning and inter-agency 

cooperation with an idea toward national application of the model In fiscal year 2002 each forest was allocated between $305,000 and $330,000 in 

start up funding. Given the severity of the 2002 fire season, not all of the funds 

were obligated, consistent with the Chief’s direction on deferring funds as a result 

of fire suppression needs. The GMUG Forest received some of this funding in fiscal 

year 2003 as carryover, and the R–3 Forests received a 2nd year allocation in fiscal 

year 2003 dollars. Fiscal year 2004 allocations for the CPR program have not been 

finalized. 

The three Forests and three Lead Counties have completed a Master MOU for the 

CPR Program. The following table displays Hazardous Fuels, Forest Health, and 

Vegetation/Watershed funds committed to the County Partner Restoration projects 

for the three forests in fiscal year 2003:

Lincoln NF ApacheSeagraves NF GMUG NF’s Total by BLI 

Hazardous Fuels ........................................................................... ( 1 ) ( 1 ) $90,000 $90,000

Forest Health ................................................................................ ( 1 ) ( 1 ) 33,000 33,000

Veg/Watershed .............................................................................. $330,000 $305,000 ( 1 ) 635,000

Total by Forest ................................................................ 330,000 305,000 123,000 758,000

1 None. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

FIREFIGHTERS

Question. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, much of the West 

is expected to experience an above normal fire season. If that turns out to be true, 

I’m concerned that the Forest Service would be unable to handle 7 million acres of 

fire with the resources being requested in this budget. Your Preparedness request 

of $610 million would provide for 4,900 firefighters, which is 53 percent fewer than 

the 10,480 you employed in fiscal year 2002; 465 fire engines, which is 53 percent 

fewer than the 995 you had in fiscal year 2002; and 48 helicopters, which is 49 per-
43

cent fewer than the 94 that were available in fiscal year 2002. It seems to me that 

the administration is proposing to cut its firefighting capability in half, while at the 

same time the fire experts are predicting an above normal fire season. How does 

the administration square that incongruity? And what was the dollar amount requested for Preparedness; both the request to the Agriculture Department, and the 

department’s request to the Office of Management and Budget? 

Answer. Preparedness funding was at an all-time high in 2001, the first year of 

the National Fire Plan. This included significant funds for one-time purchases of 

heavy equipment including engines and dozers to reach a maximal readiness level. 

While some of that equipment will have to be replaced someday, annual investments 

needs not be maintained at the 2001 level. 

In 2002, fire readiness proved to be as good as or better than ever. Ninety-nine 

percent of wildfires on Forest Service-managed lands were controlled on initial attack. Preparedness funding in the fiscal year 2004 is $9 million higher than fiscal 

year 2003 request. Preparedness funding will be targeted in 2003 and 2004 to maintain the agency preparedness at the highest level possible, with resources being positioned in the area of extreme fire danger. In addition, resources will be moved 

throughout the fire season to areas in need. If 2004 is another severe fire season, 

the fire program has the flexibility to augment Preparedness funding with ‘‘severity’’ 

funds from the suppression account to fund the placement of additional resources 

in the areas most at risk from catastrophic wildfires in order to maintain sufficient 

readiness and initial attack capability. 

Unfortunately, no amount of preparedness can prevent all fires from escaping to 

levels requiring extended fire suppression. When fires become large, the costs to 

contain them become large as well. The rise in the 10-year average recognizes the 

long-term trend in fire frequency and severity. Even so, even that increase falls 

below the costs of the past three years. We consider it prudent to maintain a funding level based on the 10-year average. Anything less would seem shortsighted given 

what we know today. 

I have directed the Regional Foresters to use funds for the purpose of attaining 

preparedness levels that are similar to fiscal year 2002. The following table displays 

a comparison of what we plan to provide in fiscal year 2003 versus 2003.

Resource type 

Fiscal year 

2003 planned 2002 actual 2003 base 

Firefighters ............................................................................................................. 10,480 6,008 10,480

Prevention Techs .................................................................................................... 403 296 332

Engines .................................................................................................................. 995 700 1,072

Forest Helicopters .................................................................................................. 75 57 87

National Helicopters ............................................................................................... 7 8 8

Smokejumpers ........................................................................................................ 277 277 277

Type I Crews .......................................................................................................... 65 65 65

Airtankers ............................................................................................................... 41 33 33

We have some concern about the loss of 11 large airtankers but feel we have several alternatives available to us that will mitigate the effect of losing this capability. 

In our 2003 Fire Operations planning we are instructing Incident Commanders to 

shift the emphasis of the airtanker fleet to initial attack rather than large fire support. We will shift suppression tactics from those that require close air support to 

those that do not require such close support (direct fireline construction versus more 

indirect). This may cause a marginal increase in total burned acres but not enough 

to be significant. We will add contract helicopters with aerial suppressant capability 

to help offset the loss of the airtankers. Finally, we will add as many as 11 Single 

Engine Airtankers (SEATS) to help with local initial attack. In a normal year, these 

alternatives will allow us to effectively suppress wildland fire without compromising 

safety, burned acres, and program costs. 

FIRE FUNDING

Question. In the past, there has been a fairly large gap between what the administration requests each year for firefighting activities and what the Congress eventually ends up having to appropriate. In the mean time, the Forest Service is frequently forced to borrow money until Congress and the President can agree to reimburse the agency for its actual costs. That is not the best way to operate. In fact, 

the Chief has been as suggesting the current system is ‘‘absolutely crazy,’’ and that 

what’s needed is a long-term solution. I know the administration’s request includes 

an additional $187 million for fire suppression, but even with that money, you could 
44

easily be $600 million short of what’s actually needed. Nevertheless, as I read your 

prepared statement, and as I look at the administration’s budget, I don’t see a longterm fix proposed anywhere. Has the Forest Service actually proposed a solution to 

the Agriculture Department, or to the Office of Management and Budget? And if you 

have, would you please tell us what you proposed, and why that proposal hasn’t 

been sent to the Congress for consideration? 

Answer. While the fiscal year 2004 proposed budget line item structure for suppression is the same as previous years, the methods used to calculate the suppression proposal is different from previous years. The fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes 

the 10-year average of total suppression costs adjusted for inflation, $604 million. 

As noted, this is $187 million more than the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and is 

also $129 million greater than what would have been required if the same method 

was used as in fiscal year 2003. The method used for fiscal year 2004 provides a 

more realistic amount that decreases the likelihood of having to transfer funds and 

should it be necessary to transfer funds, the amount would be substantially less. 

The Chief of the Forest Service has finalized direction for the fiscal year 2003 fire 

season. The USDA Forest Service Fire & Aviation Operations Action Plan (04/01/

03) responds to lessons learned following the 2002 fire season, and focuses attention 

on four critical areas: preparedness, cost containment, hazardous fuels treatments, 

and safety—for both ground and aviation operations. A copy of the Action Plan is 

attached. 

The best long-term solution to reverse the increase in suppression costs and eliminate annual transfers is to return the forests to their natural fire regimes. The fiscal 

year 2004 Budget proposes the Healthy Forest Initiative for this very reason. It is 

a tool to implement effectively and efficiently core components of the National Fire 

Plan’s 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and Implementation Plan. A century of 

well-intentioned but misguided management has interrupted the natural fire cycle 

and allowed forests to grow unnaturally dense. In addition, excessive analysis, ineffective public involvement and management inefficiencies have further delayed 

treatments to return our forest to their natural fire regime. The Healthy Forest Initiative includes legislative and administrative actions that provide the necessary 

tools to efficiently implement actions to return our forests back to their historic densities and natural fire cycles. Together with updated fire management plans and 

greater application of wildland fire use, implementation of the Healthy Forest Initiative is the solution to increase the health of our forest and the pro-active solution 

to decrease the likelihood of extraordinarily expensive fire seasons and funding 

transfers. 

In the interim, we must respectfully defer any discussion of pre-decisional issues. 

MAINTENANCE

Question. The administration’s request for the Capital Improvement and Maintenance account includes an increase of $14 million for Roads and $9 million for 

Trails, but completely eliminates the $46 million provided for Deferred Maintenance. Overall, the request cuts maintenance activities by 4.4 percent. I’m puzzled 

by these cuts because your budget documents clearly state that the deferred maintenance backlog is over $7.8 billion. Now, I understand the Forest Service has management problems with its maintenance program, but I don’t understand, when you 

have such an obvious need, why you’ve chosen to cut back on deferred maintenance? 

Answer. Deferred maintenance is an important concern to the agency and we will 

continue to focus on addressing the deferred maintenance backlog through use of 

our existing appropriations. The authority to expend funds on deferred maintenance 

already exists within Capital Improvement and Maintenance budget line items, Facilities, Roads, and Trails, the Roads and Trails for States—10 Percent fund (Expenditure from Receipts Act of 1913), Operation and Maintenance of Quarters 

funds, and the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program funds. 

The Department has a number of facilities and appurtenant administrative land 

excess to agency needs. The fiscal year 2004 Budget contains a proposal for the establishment of a Facilities Acquisition and Enhancement Fund that would enable 

the Secretary to sell such units excess to need and to utilize proceeds from those 

sales for the acquisition or development of land and improvements for administrative purposes. Funds collected under this authority would address backlogs and administrative consolidations while improving efficiencies through the reconstruction 

of functionally obsolete facilities or construction of new facilities. To this end, the 

Department will submit proposed legislation concerning this Fund in the upcoming 

weeks. 
45

LEAFY SPURGE—NOXIOUS WEEDS

Question. I’m very concerned with the noxious weed problem in North Dakota. My 

constituents who live near the Sheyenne National Grasslands in the southeastern 

part of my state and those who live near the Missouri National Grasslands in the 

western part have complained bitterly to me that the Forest Service has not been 

a good steward of the land. In particular, I’m talking about the spread of Leafy 

Spurge, which, by your own agency’s account, has infested somewhere between 

30,000 and 35,000 acres of the Missouri Grasslands. That’s more than a quarter of 

that land. For the past two years, I’ve had funds earmarked for leafy spurge management on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands; $200,000 in fiscal year 2002 and 

$300,000 in fiscal year 2003. Unfortunately, because I’ve received conflicting reports, 

I don’t have a great deal of confidence that the $200,000 provided in fiscal year 2002 

was used as Congress intended; that is, as an addition to what was otherwise provided, not $200,000 total. I want to make sure that that does not happen again, 

Chief, and so my question to you is what assurances can you give me and the people 

of North Dakota that the fiscal year 2003 funding will be used for additional weed 

control programs? 

Answer. Interagency and interdepartmental efforts have attempted to address the 

leafy spurge, one of the most insidious invasive noxious weed species, using a host 

of integrated management approaches that rely on strong partnerships between 

local, state, tribal, and national groups. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) is an 

important leader in addressing the leafy spurge infestations in North Dakota, particularly with respect to infestations on the National Grasslands. The DPG has undertaken a comprehensive and collaborative program to fight leafy spurge infestations. This program relies on partnerships with local landowners, state and county 

governments, grazing associations, and other federal agencies. These partnerships 

are proving to be the most effective in fighting leafy spurge on public and private 

lands. The DPG has met often with local congressional staffs and county weed 

boards, other federal and state agencies and grazing association officers to plan a 

landscape-scale approach to the problem, and has developed cooperative agreements 

with the North Dakota Agriculture Department and several grazing associations for 

on-the-ground leafy spurge management operations. 

The Forest Service appropriations in fiscal year 2003 contained an unrequested 

$300,000 Congressional earmark for leafy spurge control. Our efforts will focus upon 

slowing infestations across the Dakota Prairie Grasslands and adjacent state and 

private property. A component of the approach provides about $100,000 directly to 

the North Dakota Agriculture Department to assist the County Weed Boards, in 

counties where National Grasslands are located, for leafy spurge control operations 

on those National Grasslands and other nearby critical locations that threaten to 

spread to Forest Service lands. This program is augmented by roughly a 20 percent 

voluntary contribution from the non-federal partners to the projects. This non-federal contribution allows for the implementation of the Wyden Amendment for cooperative treatment of noxious weeds on both public and adjacent private property in 

Weed Management Areas. The cost share amount is based on the percentage of land 

ownership within these Weed Management Areas (private vs. federal or 20 percent 

and 80 percent). 

The DPG is also leading cooperative treatment efforts with the grazing associations, including McKenzie County Grazing Association, Little Missouri Grazing Association, Horse Creek Grazing Association, and Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association, in leafy spurge management activities on National Grasslands. This effort will 

have the added benefit of 20 percent supplemental funding from the non-federal 

partners. The Dakota Prairie Grasslands will utilize about $180,000 of the fiscal 

year 2003 appropriations to support these partnerships. 

With the balance ($20,000) of the fiscal year 2003 leafy spurge earmark, the DPG 

will hire a four-person seasonal management crew for treatment of leafy spurge in 

critical locations on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands with emphasis on biological control (Flea beetles). None of the earmark will fund permanent employees, overhead 

expenses, or other Forest Service operational costs. Many of the seasonal workers 

are from local colleges and high schools and work for the Forest Service during the 

summer. 

All participating partners will record treatment and inventory activities utilizing 

global positioning system (GPS) equipment. Field data reporting, at minimum, will 

follow protocol required by North Dakota Department of Agriculture. The consolidation of field data will be coordinated between the USDA FS and ND Department 

of Agriculture for official records, mapping, and future planning and management. 
46

GRASSLANDS MANAGEMENT PLAN

Question. What is the status of the Scientific Review Team that is reviewing and 

analyzing the 64 Allotment management Plans per the Record of Decision on the 

Grasslands Management Plan? 

Answer. Regional Forester Brad Powell selected the Scientific Review Team (SRT) 

after consultation with North Dakota Governor John Hoeven. The SRT is comprised 

of Dr. Rod Heitschmidt, UDSA—Agricultural Research Service; Dr. Kevin Sedivec, 

NDSU Animal and Range Science Department; Jeff Printz, USDA—Natural Resources Conservation Service; Dr. Douglas Johnson, USGS—Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center; Karen Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services; Kent 

Luttswagger, North Dakota Game and Fish Department; Dr. Harvey Peterson, 

Golden Valley County Extension Agent; and Dr. Don Kirby, NDSU Animal and 

Range Science Department. 

The first meeting of the SRT, held on February 10, 2003, was designed to provide 

team members with information that they would need to perform their role as defined in the Record of Decision for the Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) Plan. Their 

delineated role is ‘‘. . . to determine if the grazing portion of the plan can be implemented and to verify that grazing levels are similar to those projected in the Revised Grasslands Plan FEIS . . .’’ (Record of Decision DPG Plan page 5). The information presented to the SRT included Record of Decision, Dakota Prairie Grasslands Plan, Northern Great Plains Final Environmental Impact Statement, SRT 

Handbook and SRT Draft Charter. 

The second SRT meeting was on April 15, 2003. At this meeting, the Dakota Prairie Grasslands staff presented information to the SRT for the Little Missouri National Grasslands Assessment and the first set of eight allotment management plans 

(AMPs). The information provided included background information for these allotments. Public notice for these meetings resulted in well attended sessions by those 

interested in the process. The next meeting, scheduled for June 16–18, will include 

a field trip to those allotments where plan development is occurring. 

LEWIS & CLARK BICENTENNIAL ACTIVITIES

Question. I’m a big supporter of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial and I’m looking 

forward to helping the various bicentennial celebrations. I know the Forest Service 

is an important federal partner in this endeavor, and I’m interested in knowing how 

your budget supports the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. I know, for example, that 

there were plans to build an overlook and trail at Tobacco Gardens, in North Dakota, where Cruzat shot Merewether Lewis on August 11, 1806. It is my understanding that construction was scheduled to begin in 2003. Is that project still on 

schedule? And could you also tell us what the Forest Service is doing nationally to 

commemorate the bicentennial? 

Answer. Forest Service field units, especially those in close proximity to the Lewis 

and Clark National Historic Trail (LCNHT), continue to dedicate funding to accomplish the critical work to meet the agency’s commitment to the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Commemoration. Where possible, the Forest Service provides funding, 

technical assistance, or other in-kind assistance to mutually agreed to interagency 

projects. Four Regions have specific funding allocated for National Scenic and Historic Trails, with portions of the LCNHT, have an estimated $66,000 available for 

trail management. Since 1999, the Forest Service has granted over a $1.5 million 

to 27 state and community Lewis and Clark Bicentennial projects. Over the past 

few couple year, under the agency’s constrained budget, about $3 million has been 

allocated annually to Bicentennial activities, including the grants to state and community projects. The Dakota Prairies National Grassland has also worked in partnership with the Three Affiliated Tribes to provide interpretive programs to school 

children and as well as contributed funding to the North Dakota State Historic Museum for the development of a L&C Trail Travel Kit for North Dakota. 

The overlook and interpretive signs for Tobacco Gardens are currently under construction. Construction for the connecting trail will be accomplished in 2004. 

Nationally, the Forest Service has been working in partnership with the National 

Bicentennial Council, the Trail Heritage Foundation, federal interagency Memorandum of Understanding working group, and Tribes to ensure protection and interpretation of the historic trail, and to provide a coordinated effort for the Bicentennial. 

The Forest Service created a national exhibit that was displayed at the first signature event, at Monticello in January 2003. The Forest Service is currently planning participation in the Signature Events at the Falls of the Ohio, Louisville, KY 

and Clarksville, IN and in the Big Sky Festival in Great Falls Montana. Plans to 

participate in other Signature Events, such as in North Dakota, are evolving. The 
47

Forest Service is committed to our partnership with the National Park Service for 

Corps II, a traveling educational exhibit, and has designated an agency employee 

to be the liaison to the Corp II effort. Several Forest Service employees participated 

in giving presentations in the Tent of Many Voices at Monticello and on the National Mall. 

Question. The bicentennial will also offer the Forest Service the opportunity to 

highlight recreational opportunities that are a bit off the Lewis and Clark Trail. The 

Forest Service has developed the Maah Daah Hey Trail, which allows for hiking and 

biking through the Dakota Badlands. With increased tourism expected during the 

upcoming Lewis and Clark Bicentennial, what is the Forest Service doing to promote the Maah Daah Hey Trail and other recreational activities it offers in North 

Dakota? 

Answer. The Maah Daah Hey Trail has recently been designated a National 

Recreation Trail and will be formally dedicated on National Trails Day, June 7, 

2003. The Maah Daah Hey Trail has also been an International Mountain Bicycling 

Association (IMBA) Epic Ride and remains listed on the IMBA website (http://

www.imba.com). The Dakota Prairie Grasslands has developed brochures and maps 

about the Maah Daah Hey Trail as part of its public outreach effort. The Dakota 

Prairie National Grassland also has plans to develop and protect additional interpretive sites that commemorate other historical events that took place in North Dakota, in particular Custer’s Initial Rock and other military history of that era. 

There are several other venues for the public to receive information on recreation 

opportunities on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands. Medora is the focus of a major advertising campaign by North Dakota Tourism, which is being marketed nationally 

and internationally in major magazines and other tourism literature. The campaign 

includes information about the 96-mile long Maah Daah Hey Trail. Locally, informational kiosks display information on recreational opportunities and special events 

are publicized in the newspaper. Dakota Prairie Grasslands staff also provide information to the public both in person and over the phone. North Dakota recreational 

activities in the national grasslands are also available via the internet, and is maintained at the Forest Service website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/dakotaprairie/) and 

through the interagency recreation website (http://www.recreation.gov). 

GRASS BANKS

Question. Federal rangeland management is often made difficult during times of 

drought or other hardship. Already stressed ranchers experience shrinking resources. The Forest Service has the ability to work with local ranchers to establish 

alternative grazing ‘‘grass banks’’ and swing pastures to help during these hard 

times. What has the Forest Service done to promote the development of such tools? 

Answer. The Forest Service actively seeks alternatives to provide for rest and rehabilitation of specifically identified rangelands. The term ‘‘grassbanks’’ is a registered trademark of the Malpais Borderlands Group, therefore the Agency prefers 

to use the term ‘‘forage reserves’’ when referring to this concept in a generic sense. 

One way the Forest Service is looking at establishing forage reserves is through acquisition of private land within the grasslands where the landowners want to sell 

to the federal government. If the Forest Service acquires these lands, both the acquired private land and the associated federal allotments could be included in a forage reserves allotment. 

The Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) is also a cooperating agency with the National Park Service on their environmental analysis to acquire the Ebert land located in the vicinity of the Elkhorn Ranch within the Little Missouri National 

Grassland. Much of the work with the Park Service has entailed looking at how this 

project can achieve the best land ownership pattern for the National Park Service, 

the Dakota Prairie Grasslands, and the involved private landowners. If the Park 

Service acquires the Ebert Ranch, the DPG would be interested in establishing a 

forage reserve on the associated allotment in cooperation with the Medora Grazing 

Association. 

Under the current grazing agreements, the grazing associations have the authority to work with the district rangers to establish pastures which can serve as forage 

reserves or swing pastures, although at this point no action has taken place. Members of the grazing associations have often applied for and received approval for voluntary nonuse. However, rather than promoting the establishment of forage reserves or swing pastures in these areas, the associations have allowed others to use 

these nonuse pastures with their livestock on an annual basis. 

Dakota Prairie Grasslands (DPG) Supervisor is currently working with the Partners for Grasslands Stewardship to develop forage reserve allotments or pastures 

within existing allotments. The DPG program has explored opportunities such as 
48

land exchanges, land purchase (willing seller) and grazing system changes, to provide some of the flexibility needed by the ranching industry and to improve resource 

conditions. The Partners for Grasslands Stewardship includes several ranchers and 

local community leaders. One of their efforts has been to develop a better understanding and acceptance of forage reserves concepts and opportunities. 

SHEYENNE VALLEY GRAZING ASSOCIATION

Question. The Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association’s 10-year Grazing Agreement 

expires on March 23. Unless a new agreement is signed, or an extension granted, 

grazing will stop on these lands. The Forest Service is negotiating a new 10-year 

agreement with the Association, but the Association has raised several concerns. 

I’ve sent a letter to Mark Rey, the Natural Resources Under Secretary, spelling out 

these concerns, and asking for his cooperation in ensuring that the Forest Service 

continues to negotiate in good faith. In the meantime, I am concerned that, after 

March 23, grazing could come to a halt without a new agreement. That would be 

disastrous. Chief, I understand that you have the authority to extend the agreement 

for 2 or 3 months at a time as long as negotiations are continuing. I believe that 

would be in the best interests of all concerned. Can I have your assurance that that 

will happen? 

Answer. Grasslands Supervisor Dave Pieper sent a letter to Senator Dorgan’s office on March 10, 2003 detailing the actions that have taken place and discussions 

with your Legislative Assistant LaDeene Freimuth. The Dakota Prairie Grassland 

is continuing to work with the Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association (SVGA) to 

renew this Grazing Agreement. In the letter, Supervisor Pieper said he was ‘‘hopeful 

that a new grazing agreement will be developed and signed by the expiration date.’’ 

He also included the following paragraph of assurance:

‘‘In the event a new agreement is not signed by the expiration date, I will roll 

over the existing agreement for periods of three or more months until a new agreement is signed. This will allow permitted livestock grazing to continue unimpeded. 

I want to assure you that development of the new SVGA grazing agreement will 

be a cooperative effort between the Association and the Dakota Prairie Grasslands.’’

Supervisor Piper has tracked this process and has recently issued a letter officially extending the existing Grazing Agreement until July 1, 2003, while development of a new formal grazing agreement is continued. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS

Question. The Forest Service is requiring states to identify potential tracts of land 

for acquisition up to two years in advance. It has also indicated a preference for 

identifying individual tracts instead of focusing on a strategy that emphasizes corridor area protection, a strategy that has proved very effective in South Carolina. 

The ACE Basin river corridor in South Carolina is a great example of success regarding this type of approach to land acquisition. Why has the Forest Service 

pushed for such early identification of potential land acquisitions? Why has the Forest Service chosen to push the identification of individual tracts of land as opposed 

to concentrating on corridor areas, specifically river corridor areas? 

Answer. The federal acquisition process, as defined by laws, rules, regulations, 

and policy, and being subject to the annual appropriations process, makes purchasing a tract of land by the Forest Service much more complex and time consuming than occurs between two private individuals. In addition, much lead-time 

is required in order to get a project in the President’s annual budget request to Congress. 

Some of these requirements involve the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91–646) and the appraisal 

process, which can take from 6 to 8 months to contract for, produce an approvable 

report, and then complete agency review. Title issues, clearing of liens, surveys, 

hazmat investigation requirements, laws dealing with relocation assistance, negotiations, the phasing of projects, Congressional oversight, and specific requirements 

found in various appropriate authorizing legislation can all add to the time factor 

in processing a case. 

The annual appropriations process begins with the individual forests submitting 

their priority projects to the regions and then to the Washington Office during the 

summer before the President’s next year’s budget is submitted to Congress. Forests 

cannot know what lands are available for purchase until much of the preliminary 

work mentioned above is completed. 
49

The Forest Service is aware of and frequently uses the approach of ‘‘focusing on 

a strategy that emphasizes corridor area protection’’, which the Senator suggests in 

his letter. That approach has been used successfully over the past 11 years on the 

Chattooga Wild and Scenic River Corridor, which involves Georgia, North Carolina, 

and South Carolina. Emphasis has been placed on acquiring high priority tracts located within those river corridor boundaries. We are currently working with The 

Conservation Fund for the definition of a corridor for the new Broad River acquisition program in South Carolina in order that our acquisition program there will be 

the most effective. We have frequently used defined corridor planning to focus our 

acquisition efforts in various wilderness areas, other congressionally authorized 

areas such as National Recreation Areas including the Sawtooth; the Columbia 

River Gorge; the Florida National Scenic Trail; and since 1978 on the Appalachian 

National Scenic Trail. 

Question. Can you outline for me the guidelines the Forest Service follows in identifying and ranking projects selected in the Forest Legacy program? Why do different regions follow different guidelines? Why does the Forest Service insert itself 

so heavily into the selection process? Why have lead agencies in our states not been 

intensively involved in drafting new guidelines or been involved more heavily in the 

selection process? 

Answer. The Forest Legacy Program operates under program implementation 

guidelines adopted in 1996. These guidelines are currently under review and are in 

the process of revision. The final revision will be released this year and is being 

amended to respond to program growth since 1996, findings expressed in the House 

of Representatives Committee on Appropriations investigation report released in 

June 2002 and to meet fiscal year 2003 congressional direction on specific items to 

be included in the revision. 

In keeping with the direction described in the above answer, the Forest Service 

engages in a project selection process that is articulated as direction to Forest Service Regional Foresters, Area and International Institute for Tropical Forestry Directors and State and Private Forestry Directors and Program Managers that includes 

a calendar of milestones and due dates. This is a five-step process that begins with 

submissions of project priorities from each participating State; receives Forest Service Regional input; undergoes a national review team process in which projects are 

scored using national criteria and selected for recommendation in a prioritized list; 

and are then submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for inclusion in 

the President’s Budget. 

The Forest Service conducts this project selection process to comply with Congressional and Administration direction and to perform its oversight responsibilities to 

deliver this national program. Forest Service regions are allowed flexibility to develop mechanisms to assess and to recommend projects for selection. They must utilize the national criteria and provide information and input on individual projects 

to inform that process. The foundation for the entire project selection process is the 

process that participating State Lead Agencies perform with their State Forest 

Stewardship Coordinating Committees to review, approve and rank projects in their 

State. Only projects that are determined by the State-based process as priorities are 

considered for funding and recommended by the Forest Service. 

The Forest Legacy Program Implementation Guidelines revision has been conducted through a State lead agency—Forest Service Team. The revision began in 

2000 and has undergone numerous drafting rounds and open comment periods with 

input received from hundreds of groups and agency personnel from across the country. The Guidelines Revision Team is composed of nine members from State lead 

agencies and the Forest Service. Drafts of the guidelines have been presented at national meetings and for review with State program managers from all participating 

States. 

Question. The regulations employed by the Forest Service for land appraisal in the 

states is overburdening. The process is inconsistent, especially with respect to 

projects in the Forest Legacy program. In a time of tight budgets and huge deficits, 

it is unwise to require 2 or 3 appraisals by certified appraisers at a high cost to 

the taxpayer. There has been more emphasis placed on the method of appraisals as 

opposed to the value of the land. What has the Forest Service done to improve and 

streamline this process? Why is it taking multiple appraisals in order to get Forest 

Service approval for new land acquisitions? Do I need to ask for a GAO review of 

the appraisal process to determine where the problem is? 

Answer. The House Appropriations Committee reviewed the Forest Service Legacy 

Program and issued a report in June 2002. Among the findings of that investigation 

report were several related to appraisal and appraisal review. The report cited the 

requirement that Federal payments to landowners not exceed the market value of 

the property and that appraisals prepared to determine market value must be pre-
50

pared in conformance with the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. Many appraisals approved by States were later found not to comply with 

Federal appraisal standards and, in many cases, the value estimates were not supported. 

There are several reasons for a large number of unapproved appraisal reports. 

Federal oversight of the program was found to be inconsistent and States have hired 

appraisers and review appraisers not qualified to perform the appraisal and review 

assignments. States have been reluctant to impose uniform qualifications requirements for appraisers and review appraisers. Federal reviews of those appraisals in 

compliance with Forest Service oversight requirements have too often discovered 

these deficiencies after the fact. It often requires multiple appraisals to effect an acquisition when appraisers or reviewers are hired that are not qualified or who cannot support their value estimates. 

In an effort to streamline the appraisal process and help ensure more effective 

use of public funds, the Forest Service is working with the States to involve the assigned review appraiser early in the acquisition process to help obviate later unpleasant surprises. The Forest Service is also working with the States to adopt 

standard implementation guidelines for appraisal and appraisal review. There are 

both industry and Federal appraisal standards that must be applied when public 

funds are expended. Appraisal reports failing to comply with those standards cannot 

be approved. 

The Forest Service valuation function has been investigated and reviewed by 

GAO, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Inspector General (OIG), The 

Appraisal Foundation (TAF), and the aforementioned House Appropriations Committee. The Forest Service has made substantial changes in policy the past few 

years to comply with recommendations of those investigations and reviews. 

In the Federal appraisal community, the Forest Service is now regarded as a 

yardstick by which other agencies measure their valuation function. For example, 

TAF also reviewed the Bureau of Land Management, Department of Interior, and 

issued a report in October 2002. That report recommended massive changes to the 

way BLM does its appraisal business and how it is organized. The Forest Service 

has been requested to assist the BLM in implementing some recommendations of 

TAF report, as well as OIG and GAO reviews and audits dating back to 1987. The 

Appraisal Work Group chartered by BLM has relied upon ‘‘the Forest Service 

model’’ for several appraisal organization recommendations. The Chief Appraiser, 

Department of Justice, recently reported that he has fewer litigation and standards 

compliance problems with Forest Service than any other agency with which he routinely works. 

USDA FOREST SERVICE—FIRE & AVIATION OPERATIONS ACTION PLAN 2003 

[Finalized 04/01/03] 

INTRODUCTION

This plan establishes Chief’s direction for the 2003 fire season. It responds to lessons learned, after-action assessments, and formal reviews following the 2002 fire 

season. It incorporates recommendations from the Line Officer’s Team and Chief’s 

taskings dealing with cost containment (Troyer-Mann Report and Cost Accountability Report). The plan is consistent with the 30-Mile Mitigation Plan, the 10-Year 

Comprehensive Plan and the National Fire Plan. This direction introduces operational expectations and clarifies existing policies and procedures. It reinforces performance expectations for Forest Service Line Officers and Fire & Aviation Management personnel. 

The plan focuses attention on four areas: 

—Preparedness 

—Cost containment 

—Hazardous fuel treatments 

—Safety—ground and aviation operations 

This plan is responsive to Administration goals of fiscal integrity and the Chief’s 

goals to deliver a safe, effective Fire & Aviation Management program. It recognizes 

that large air tanker capacity is down from previous years and several cooperator 

programs are also below last year’s levels. 

The direction established in this plan reflect important performance measures for 

Line Officers, Incident—Area Command Teams, and fire management personnel in 

the conduct of operations. 

Finally, this plan recognizes that, because of Forest Service capability and experience with emergency response, the agency will continue to be asked to respond to 
51

incidents beyond the normal scope of business. The Forest Service is prepared to 

support missions that assist others in need, with focus on assisting others to build 

their capacity to respond. Management options for handling future all-risk workloads must be defined. In this context, the following priorities will guide the commitment of resources: 

1. National security 

2. Protection of life 

3. Protection of property 

4. Protection of natural resources 

BACKGROUND

During the fire season of 2002, initial attack forces displayed remarkable success 

under extreme burning conditions by containing over 98 percent of all starts before 

they could become large fires. The fires that escaped initial or extended attack actions resulted in extraordinary costs, losses, and damages. Fires that grew above 

300 acres accounted for over 95 percent of the total acres burned and nearly 85 percent of all suppression expenditures. Wildfires on National Forest System lands 

burned over 1.4 million acres or over twice the 10-year average. Suppression expenditures were $1.2 billion; again twice the 10-year average. 

Fireline operations were relatively safe, given the level of exposure. Vehicle accidents and aircraft accidents, however, exceeded past levels and accounted for 69 

percent of all wildland fire-related fatalities in 2002. 

SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT

Wildland Fire Outlook—March through August 2003. National and Geographic 

Predictive Service groups, climatologists, fuels specialists and fire behavior analysts 

convened for a seasonal assessment workshop in Mesa, Arizona during the week of 

February 24–28, 2003. Based on the analysis shared and assessments completed, it 

was determined that nationally, the 2003 fire season will not be as severe as 2002 

(seasonal assessment http://www.nifc.gov). However, much of the interior West, 

south/central Alaska, western Great Lakes and northern Maine is expected to experience an above normal fire season for the following reasons: 

—Long-term drought persists over much of the interior West with mountain 

snowpack and winter precipitation remaining below average to date. 

—Drought stressed and/or insect damaged vegetation is becoming more prevalent 

across the western states and will increase the potential for large, destructive 

wildfires at mid to high elevations. 

—Drought conditions are emerging in the Great Lake States leaving herbaceous 

fuels standing, uncompressed, and receptive to ignition. An early fire season is 

anticipated with peat fires in these areas being problematic due to dry conditions. 

—Early snow melt is anticipated for Alaska, Pacific Northwest, Great Basin and 

Northeastern California which will cause large dead/downed fuel moistures to 

drop below critical values earlier than normal in the higher elevation areas, resulting in an early and extended fire season. 

—The Southern Area is expecting a below normal spring fire season overall, however forecasts call for a very active tropical storm season which could result in 

an above average number of hurricanes that impact the area and diminish fire 

risk through the summer months. 

—An early spring prescribed fire season is expected across many western states. 

—State budget reductions are likely to result in reduced firefighting capacity from 

our State and local cooperators. 

Unless weather patterns provide relief, 2003 has the potential for an above normal fire season with several areas experiencing significant wildfire activity simultaneously. In some parts of the country, fire season potential will likely be higher, as 

the result of several years of drought. Of particular significance is the potential for 

long-duration fires in higher elevation timber types in much of the interior West. 

Fires occurring in these types often prove to be difficult to suppress and very labor 

intensive. Historically, in the Northern Rockies and higher elevation sites elsewhere 

in the interior West, exponential acreage growth typically occurs very late in the 

season, as high velocity winds blow out unsecured perimeters. 

PREPAREDNESS

Policy.—‘‘Agencies will ensure their capability to provide safe, cost effective fire 

management programs in support of land and resource management plans through 

appropriate planning, staffing, training, equipment, and management oversight.’’ 
52

Principle.—Where hazardous fuels dominate the landscape, establishing a strong, 

decisive initial attack capability is a key component in minimizing large fire suppression costs. As fire danger levels increase and suppression resources become 

scarce, initial attack capacity must be maintained as the most certain means of preventing new costly wildfires. 

Chief’s Intent.—Extended attack and initial attack operations will be the number 

one mobilization priority. All efforts will be made to utilize predictive services, anticipate threats, and pre-position protection resources. 

At National Planning Levels Four and Five, national shared resources 

(airtankers, hotshot crews, smokejumpers, etc.) will be allocated and re-allocated by 

National Multi-agency Coordination Group (NMAC), based on observed and predicted fire danger intelligence. 

All units will be trained, staffed and ready to meet operational demands. Staffing 

levels will be adjusted, based on observed and predicted fire danger in order to 

maintain protection capabilities. Staffing levels will be coordinated with adjacent cooperators. 

Personnel will be trained, qualified, and red-carded for the positions that they are 

assigned. Forest Service employees will be available to support fire emergencies to 

the best of their ability and capability. 

Objective.—All level units will be staffed at the identical 2002 level. We are currently working with OMB to achieve this goal. (95 percent of planned NFMAS capability). A 98 percent initial/extended attack success rate remains our goal in 2003. 

Chief’s Direction 

—Fire Management Plans will be updated utilizing the new interagency template 

(All plans must meet this new requirement no later than December, 2004). 

—Effective organizational capability will be sustained by maintaining management, supervisory, and crew staffing skills. Coaches or mentors will be pre-identified for support, where they may be needed. 

—Managers will assure personnel assigned to full duty will be appropriately 

trained and physically fit prior to their deployment. 

—Staffing levels and drawdown plans will be adjusted, based on observed and 

predicted fire danger. Severity funding requests will be submitted and approved 

prior to the pay period for which they are planned. Severity requests will be 

coordinated with cooperators to most effectively maintain management oversight, supervisory controls, and crew capabilities in the critical area. 

—Units will be prepared to hire and train AD employees and local/volunteer fire 

department personnel to meet local and, as appropriate, national needs. Training and availability of State and local fire departments, including volunteers, 

will be coordinated. 

—Preparedness Plans, Mutual Threat Plans, Memorandums of Understanding, 

Cost Share Agreements, and other plans will be reviewed and updated prior to 

fire season. 

—Multi-agency Coordinating Group (MAC) members will be pre-identified and 

Predictive Services support will be ready prior to the start of fire season. MAC 

Groups should include individuals with coordination and command experience. 

Prior to fire season, MAC Groups will establish prioritization criteria for incident allocation and re-allocation of resources. Line Officers will provide a formal 

Delegation of Authority to MAC Groups that include agency objectives and 

agency expectations. Prioritization criteria will be included in the Delegation of 

Authority. 

—Service and Supply Plans will be completed and associated Emergency Equipment Rental Agreements (EERA) will be in place prior to fire season. 

—Pre-season simulations, including Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA) development, will be conducted on units. 

COST CONTAINMENT

Policy.—‘‘Fires are suppressed at minimum cost, considering firefighter and public 

safety, benefits, and values to be protected, consistent with resource objectives.’’

Principle.—Line Officer oversight and involvement during the decision-making 

process is critical for containing suppression costs. 

Chief’s Intent.—In terms of implementation, this means that the primary criteria 

for choosing suppression strategies are to minimize costs without compromising 

safety. Planned and actual suppression costs must also be commensurate with the 

values to be protected. They must be included and displayed in the Wildland Fire 

Situation Analysis (WFSA). 

Under no circumstances are suppression strategies to be tailored to achieve resource benefit. Even though resource benefits may result in some areas of the fires, 
53

it is inappropriate to expend suppression dollars with the explicit objective of 

achieving resource benefits. 

Indirect suppression strategies (containing to natural barriers, etc.) are appropriate only if they are the safest or least cost option. When fire danger trends are 

rising, the selection of these strategies must be carefully scrutinized because escape 

potentials are greater. Long-duration, ‘‘siege-like’’ wildfires where high numbers of 

firefighting resources are being committed, need to be closely evaluated by standing 

cost containment teams to ensure that operations are not occurring beyond the point 

of diminishing returns. 

Objective.—Expend only those funds required for the safe, cost-effective suppression of the incident. 

Chief’s Direction 

—Line Officers are responsible for financial oversight. This responsibility cannot 

be delegated. 

—Formulate two inter-agency Standing Suppression Cost Review Teams. Teams 

will be established by April 15. 

—When fire danger trends are rising, the long-term consequences of indirect containment strategies, including final fire cost, will be considered in the initial action decision. 

—The WFSA will include the least-suppression cost option. This option will serve 

as a way to describe the values to be protected and the context surrounding a 

suppression decision. If the least-suppression cost option is not chosen, the 

WFSA will include written rationale for not choosing it. 

—A suppression cost objective will be included as an incident objective and included in the Delegation of Authority to the Incident Commander. These cost 

objectives must maintain safety considerations and be commensurate with the 

values to be protected Revision of the WFSA is required if incident cost objectives are exceeded. 

—Incident suppression cost objectives will be included as a performance measure 

in Incident Management Team evaluations. 

—Suppression costs over $2 million will require approval of the Forest Supervisor. 

—Suppression costs over $10 million require Regional Forester approval and costs 

exceeding $50 million will require Chief’s Office approval. It is understood that, 

in approving suppression costs, decision-makers at the higher organizational 

levels share the risks associated with outcomes. 

—All incidents projected to exceed $5 million will require assigning an Incident 

Business Advisor. The Incident Business Advisor reports directly to the responsible Line Officer/Agency Administrator. 

—Wildfires involving multiple jurisdictions should require mutually agreed-upon 

Unified Commands. Commands should be unified as early in the incident as 

possible. The rapid exchange of information and coordinated tactics are a safety 

precaution, first, and a cost containment protocol, second. Cost apportionments 

will be based on mutually agreed upon criteria and reflected in the Delegation 

of Authority from Agency Administrators. 

HAZARDOUS FUEL TREATMENTS

Policy.—Hazardous fuels are treated, using appropriate tools, to reduce the risk 

of unplanned and unwanted wildland fire to communities and the environment. 

Principle.—The most effective means of reducing large fire suppression costs, protecting community values, restoring forest and grassland health, and improving firefighter safety, is an aggressive fuel treatment program. Treatments are particularly 

important in fire-dependent ecosystems, where prolonged fire exclusion has resulted 

in over-accumulated fuels. The Forest Service will continue to emphasize fuel treatments in high priority areas where communities, watersheds, and critical resources 

are at risk. 

Chief’s Intent.—The President’s Healthy Forest Initiative, the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy and the National Fire plan establish goals for reducing hazardous fuels. Reducing risk to our firefighters, communities, municipal watersheds 

and restoring the health of our forests and rangelands are the central themes of 

these initiatives. 

The safest, most effective wildfire protection strategy is predicated on an aggressive fuels reduction program. In fire-dependent ecosystems, the use of prescribed 

fire, at ecologically appropriate intensities is an essential means of restoring forest 

health conditions. In Fire Regime I, Condition Class 3 forests, hazard mitigation 

treatments may often be required before prescribed fire projects can go forward 

within acceptable limits of social, economic, and ecological risk. 
54

Prescribed fires and wildland fires that aim to achieve resource benefits must be 

accompanied by supporting NEPA compliant plans. 

Objective.—Treat 1.6 million acres of hazardous fuels, service-wide. 

Chief’s Direction 

—A high priority will be given to achieving fuels treatment projects through the 

fire season. 

—Re-distribution of targets and funds between Regions may occur in order to 

maximize project accomplishments, service-wide. 

—Identification on fiscal year 2004 hazardous fuels projects will be completed by 

May 1, 2003 (reference FSM 5100 letter, dated January 14, 2003, ‘‘fiscal year 

2004 Fuel Treatment Program Priorities’’). 

SAFETY—GROUND AND AVIATION OPERATIONS

Policy.—‘‘Firefighter safety is the first priority.’’ Fight fire aggressively, but provide for safety first! 

Principles 

—Firefighter safety comes first on every fire every time. 

—The 10-Standard Firefighting Orders are firm; we don’t break them, we don’t 

bend them. 

—Every firefighter has the right to a safe assignment. 

—Every Line Officer, every Fire Manager, every fireline supervisor, and every 

firefighter is responsible to ensure that established safe practices are known 

and observed. 

Chief’s Intent.—Safety will not be compromised in the conduct of ground or air 

operations. However, safety decisions must be made in the context of probabilities, 

exposure, and consequence over the long-term, particularly as fire danger trends are 

rising. The selection of indirect containment strategies must be weighed against 

longer-term safety concerns that may result if the fire exceeds expected or planned 

perimeters. Likewise, nighttime operations that mitigate snags and other hazards 

may be the safer tactic when weighed against fire behavior dangers that often exist 

during active burning periods. When seasonal fire danger trends are rising, the 

small wildland fire kept small is generally the safer fire. 

Proactive suppression tactics that can mitigate hazards and provide an operational advantage are favored over reactive or passive tactics that increase exposure 

to the firefighters over time. We all have a role in safety. In pre-season preparedness meetings, take the time to discuss the responsibilities and expectations that 

surround firefighting safety. 

Objective.—Observe established safe practices on every fire this year. 

Chief’s Direction 

—Continue the implementation of the Thirty mile Hazard Abatement Plan on all 

units. 

—Unit preparedness—at management oversight, supervisory control, and crew 

levels—will be commensurate with observed and predicted fire danger. 

—Managers and supervisors will be in compliance with the National Wildland Coordinating Group (NWCG) work rest guidelines (2003 National Interagency Mobilization Guide). 

—Appropriate span of control will be maintained for managers, supervisors, and 

firefighters at a ratio commensurate to the complexities presented by the 

fireline operations at hand. 

—Define control objectives (e.g. road, river, fuel type break, or other perimeter objective) on every initial attack incident. When control objectives are exceeded, 

immediately delay, modify, or abandon any firefighting action. Fireline Supervisors will assess the new situation, brief the firefighters on strategy/tactical 

change, and then implement appropriate actions. 

—Airtankers airworthiness and maintenance status will be monitored as the fire 

season progresses. At appropriate intervals, required inspections and maintenance will be conducted. 

—Airtankers will be pre-positioned, based on projected fire danger levels, in the 

context of values to be protected. 

—Airtankers will be utilized primarily for initial and extended attack. Large fire 

airtanker use will be determined on a case-by-case basis, or when lives or communities are at risk. 

Communicate.—Safety is a responsibility we all share. 

See it—Say it—Fix it.—You owe it to yourself, your crew, and those around you. 
55

SUMMARY

Dynamic tensions define today’s Fire and Aviation Management Program. These 

tensions can only be managed successfully with adherence to established safe practices procedures, attention to critical fire behavior risk thresholds, and sound judgment. 

At the highest levels of activity, when suppression demands are high and resources are scarce, Line Officers and Fire Managers must maintain a high level of 

situational awareness, anticipate needs, and proactively lead. 

Paying attention to relationships and maintaining open lines of communication 

pay big dividends when people and organizations are under stress. We are stronger 

when we work together and more effective when we share information. 

Early projections indicate that this fire season may be another difficult year for 

us. The steps outlined in this action plan are intended to increase margins of safety 

and preparedness with the aim of reducing the costs, losses, and damages that have 

become more common as fuels have built up in drought areas where people live. 

However, over the long-term, an aggressive fuel treatment program is the surest 

means of ensuring firefighter and public safety, reversing wildfire costs, and restoring healthy, resilient forests and grasslands (Wildfire Suppression: Strategies for 

Containing Costs, NAPA Report, 09/02). 

We will continue to pursue an accelerated fuel treatment program. Programs that 

focus on restoration of fire-dependent ecosystems and better integrate fuel management, forest health, wildlife, range, watershed, and other available dollars will be 

more aggressively explored.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator BURNS. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee will 

stand in recess to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 10, in 

room SD–124. At that time we will hear testimony from the Honorable Gale A. Norton, Secretay of the Interior. 

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., Thursday, March 20, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 10.]

(57)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2004

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Burns, Stevens, and Dorgan. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

ACCOMPANIED BY: 

P. LYNN SCARLETT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

JOHN D. TREZISE, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. We will call the committee to order. 

Depending on if you are running on daylight savings time, or just 

standard time, which one of the clocks do you want to go by? 

We like to serve everybody with 10 o’clock according to one and 

another one. 

Madame Secretary, thank you for coming today as we look at the 

budget for the Interior Department and the appropriations for 

2004. While I suspect we will get to a number of topics today, there 

is one aspect of the Department’s budget request that really jumps 

off the page. One does not have to be an accountant to see that we 

have real problems. I am talking, of course, about the Indian trust 

reform. 

It looks like right now, compared to the 2003 enacted level, the 

Department’s request for programs under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction represents an increase of about $370 million. Of that 

total increase, at least $180 million is for trust reform activities of 

the Office of Special Trustee in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The 

bulk of that increase is to implement the Department’s plan for 

historical accounting. This is a remarkable concentration of resources for a single task. I think you would have to agree with 

that. 
58

Madame Secretary, we applaud the commitment you have made 

to the trust reform; both in dollars, and in terms of your personal 

attention. I know it has occupied far more time than you would 

have imagined, or you would care to even talk about. But the litigation has taken its toll on the morale and funds of the Department. 

I think all of us here are struggling with the fact that increasing 

resources being devoted to trust reform are resources that might 

otherwise be spent in improving Indian schools, maintaining our 

national parks and public lands, or working with landowners to 

eliminate noxious weeds, and conserve the critical wildlife habitat. 

We know that it will take money to fix the trust problem. 

Madame Secretary, I think you would agree that over the years 

this committee has been very responsive to the Department’s budget request for trust reform. But this year’s request, particularly in 

respect to the historical accounting, really forces this committee to 

ask some tough questions. 

On one hand, I do not think any of us want to simply give up 

on historical accounting. I hate to condemn the Federal Government to paying billions of dollars of damages that may or may not 

have occurred. On the other hand, can we justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars to perform a historical accounting that 

will, undoubtedly, be disputed in Indian country? 

What will such an accounting ultimately tell us? And what needs 

in Indian country will go unfulfilled while we go through this very 

expensive process? These are really difficult issues. And, Madame 

Secretary, I suspect the line of questioning this morning will go 

down that trail. 

We also have a problem that I want to raise with you as far as 

increased funding in Indian schools, and the community colleges 

that are located around our many reservations. We increased the 

monies going into that particular program, and to higher education 

in Indian country. As it turns out, by some quirk of the pen, I get 

a decrease in my monies going for students in Montana. Rather 

than being an accross the board increase for all Indian schools, all 

of the funding gets distributed elsewhere. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

We will look into this. But I will tell you that you can look forward to seeing this Senator in that office. I am going to find out 

how they do those figures, because I will not allow this to happen. 

I do not fight for my State, and I do not fight for funds for higher 

education in Indian country, to see it become concentrated in one 

place under some quirk of a rule of titles. We are going to look into 

that and be very critical of it. Again, I thank you for coming this 

morning. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Welcome Madam Secretary. We appreciate your making the time today to appear 

before the committee in support of your fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

While I suspect we will get into a number of topics today, there is one aspect of 

the Department’s budget request that really jumps off the page. I am talking, of 

course, about Indian trust reform. 
59

Compared to the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, the Department’s request for programs under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction represents an increase of about $370 

million. Of that total increase, at least $180 million is for trust reform activities in 

the Office of Special Trustee and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The bulk of that increase is to implement the Department’s plan for historical accounting. This is a remarkable concentration of resources on a single task. 

Madam Secretary, we applaud the commitment you have made to trust reform, 

both in dollars and in terms of your personal attention. I know it has occupied far 

more of your time than you ever imagined, and that the litigation has taken a toll 

on morale within the Department. 

But I think all of us are struggling with the fact that the increasing resources 

being devoted to trust reform are resources that might otherwise be spent improving 

Indian schools, maintaining our national parks and public lands, or working with 

landowners to eliminate noxious weeds and conserve critical wildlife habitat. 

We know that it will take money to fix the trust problem. Madam Secretary, I 

think you would agree that over the years this Committee has been very responsive 

to the Department’s budget requests for trust reform. But this year’s request—particularly with respect to historical accounting—really forces this committee to ask 

some tough questions. 

On the one hand, I don’t think any of us want simply to give up on historical accounting. I’d hate to condemn the Federal Government to paying billions of dollars 

in damages that may or may not have occurred. On the other hand, can we justify 

spending hundreds of millions of dollars to perform an historical accounting that 

will undoubtedly be disputed in Indian country? What will such an accounting ultimately tell us? And what needs in Indian Country will go unfulfilled while we go 

through this very expensive process? 

These are difficult issues, Madam Secretary, and we’re anxious to hear your 

thoughts on them today. Certainly we’ll have a lot else to talk about as well, so I’ll 

conclude my remarks at this time and ask Senator Dorgan if he has an opening 

statement.

Senator BURNS. It is good this morning to recognize my co-partner on this committee, Senator Dorgan. It is your turn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. No, no. Mr. Chairman, I am just trying to digest all that you have just said. 

I agree with much of what the chairman has said. And, Madame 

Secretary, let me say, first of all, that I welcome you and look forward to working with you on these issues. You know, perhaps, that 

today I will ask you about the United Tribes Technical College and 

the proposal to de-fund that. I will ask you about some issues that 

are not necessarily the purview of this subcommittee dealing with 

NAWS funding and some things, some commitments we have made 

that the President’s budget does not keep. 

I note some things in the budget that I think give us some heart, 

taking care of parks. The proposal to increase the maintenance 

backlog in national parks, I think, makes a lot of sense. I mean, 

we just cannot keep pushing that off. And a number of administrations have done that. I think there are some solid recommendations 

that we will agree on. 

The Senator from Montana described the funding issue with respect to Indian schools. And it is not right and not fair, in my judgment, to decide we are going to actually decrease the money that 

is available to Indian schools. I know that you probably will argue, 

‘‘Well, the funding for last year included $2 million that was added 

by the Congress.’’ But even at that, we are dramatically below the 

per-student support that we provide to other colleges in this country. 
60

So on that I think you will find that this subcommittee feels very 

strongly about Indian education. And the tribal colleges have been 

a remarkably effective way to allow people to escape from poverty, 

to get educated and move to a payroll, get a good job as a result 

of the training and the education they get at tribal colleges. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So we have a number of things to talk about. You run a very big 

agency. It does a lot of different things. Some I think it does exceptionally well. Some perhaps can well use some improvement. So I 

look forward to visiting with you about all of those issues, Madame 

Secretary. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Madame Secretary, thank you for being here this morning to present the department’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. We understand that you have many responsibilities and many demands placed on your time, and so we appreciate your willingness to come before this subcommittee to answer our questions. 

As you know, the services provided by the Department of the Interior are vitally 

important to our constituents and reach well beyond the traditional notion of parks 

and wildlife refuges. Many North Dakotans, for example, rely on the programs of 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs. From education, to community. development, to law 

enforcement, to environmental and resource management, the BIA is critical to the 

Native American population in my state, and I think in the Chairman’s state, too. 

Yet, as I look at the administration’s budget, I am deeply concerned with the way 

the administration has prioritized its scarce resources. While some agencies and 

programs have received 3 or 4 or 5 percent increases, total funding for tribal allocations goes up by less than I percent and funding for tribal colleges is cut by nearly 

9 percent. These are serious flaws, Madame Secretary. 

Mr. Chairman, despite my reservations, I look forward to hearing the Secretary’s 

testimony, and I have no doubt that she will put the best face on a rather dismal 

situation. Nevertheless, as this process proceeds, I hope to work with you to rectify 

what I think are fundamental mistakes in the way this budget has been arranged.

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. 

Senator Stevens. 

We are blessed with the chairman of the full committee this 

morning. 

Senator STEVENS. Not for long. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Madame Secretary, I want to invite you—I heard you are interested in going out to the end of the Aleutian chain. I would encourage you to do that and tell you that if you do that, we will get a 

plane and take a few other people along with us. It is the forgotten 

place of World War II. More people were killed in the Aleutian battle than were killed in the Battle of the Coral Sea. 

The battles took place at approximately the same time. Very interesting place. We would go to Kiska and Attu and Shemya and 

Dutch Harbor. I think it is a wonderful thing if you show some interest there, because there are many people who would like to go 

there, but there are no facilities to do so. We have prohibited that 

because of the withdrawals made by your predecessors. 

So I think it would be wonderful if you would just look at it. I 

think the World War II veterans, their families, would be very interested to see some means of access to those areas. 
61

I have a long statement here to make, but let me do this for the 

convenience of the committee and for the time factor that you have. 

My colleague, Lisa Murkowski, Senator Murkowski, and I would 

like to talk to you about the delay in terms of land conveyances to 

both the Alaska natives and the State of Alaska. We would like to 

set a deadline for getting all that done, which includes accelerating 

the surveying. 

We would like to talk to you about the proposed regulations of 

the Park Service concerning commercial use that put commercialization within the national parks, as far as those people who 

are recognized to have rights to conduct their business activities 

within the parks. As you know, we have, I think, more than 70 percent of the total areas with the national parks that are in our 

State. There are two categories, those that were national park 

areas before 1980 and those after 1980. The 1980 Act preserved a 

considerable number of rights for Alaska native people and other 

Alaskans with the additions to the national park system that was 

created by the 1980 Act. Those regulations, in our opinion, do not 

recognize the rights that were preserved by the 1980 Act. And I 

would encourage you to review that. My statement, full statement, 

deals with some of those. 

Of basic concern, really, is the restriction of access across the 

parklands. We accept the fact that the pre–1980 parks and their 

acreage are not subject to the rights created, or really preserved in 

the 1980 Act for the enormous additions. That Act withdrew over 

100 million acres of our State. And without the rights for access 

across those lands that were preserved, the native lands and the 

State lands that are beyond them become absolutely inaccessible, 

unless we build some really crazy roads that would go north, south, 

east, and then west and back north again. It would be impossible 

to get money for Federal roads of that type. But I would urge you 

to take a look at it with regard to that. 

We have also raised the issue of fires on Federal lands. It is an 

interesting thing. We burned over 7.1 million acres nationwide. 

And there was little attention paid to fires in Alaska. When a few 

hundred thousand acres burned around Montana or Colorado 

around national parks, they flew Alaska firefighters down there to 

fight it. 

We think there has to be some standard made in terms of the 

regions of Alaska that are going to be given fire protection because 

in many instances, those fires rushed across State lands and Federal lands. And by the time they reached our lands, they were just 

out of control. I can show you that right in Kenai just south of 

where I live. 

Also, we have a problem with—the spruce bark beetles have 

killed millions of acres of land. And we know that when fire starts, 

the fire goes through the beetle kill area, the dead timber first. 

And that, too, with the dry winter we have had, we feel this 2 million acres in the south-central area alone have been killed by the 

birch beetles, most of them on Federal land. But there is no action 

being taken. And I understand, in fact, the people I call extreme 

environmentalists oppose taking action on Federal land to remove 

that dead timber. That dead timber jeopardizes half of our population. We are not very big in population, but half of the population 
62

of Alaska is still important. And we are surrounded by that beetle 

kill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

So, Mr. Chairman, let me put the whole statement in the record. 

I will send you a copy, Madame Secretary, and save the rest of 

the time. Let me take the time to congratulate you on what you 

are doing. I think you are a breath of fresh air in being willing to 

listen. I am not sure I always agree with you, but you will listen. 

And we look forward to working with you. And I am particularly 

proud to be a member of this committee so I can listen to you. 

Thank you very much. 

[The statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

Good morning Madam Secretary. An issue of concern to myself and to Senator 

Lisa Murkowski is the pace of the Bureau of Land Management’s Alaska Land Conveyance Program. 

As you know, the BLM was tasked with completing work on Native allotments 

and land selections mandated by both the Alaska Statehood Act of 1959 and the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. 

That task has not been completed. 

This delay has severely impacted the ability of the State of Alaska and our Native 

groups from developing their resources and furthering the economic development of 

the State. 

Language included in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill directs the 

Bureau to develop a plan to ensure that allotments and conveyances are completed 

by 2009. 

I would like to get your commitment that the BLM will abide by its obligations 

and complete the land conveyance program by 2009. 

I know that Senator Murkowski is committed to assisting you and the BLM in 

this effort through her membership on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. 

And I commit to providing the BLM the resources it needs to develop this plan. 

Another issue is the National Park Service’s proposed regulations concerning the 

issuance and administration of commercial use authorizations in National Parks. 

As expressed to you in a February 6, 2003 letter from Senator Murkowski, Congressman Don Young and myself, these proposed regulations fail to comply with the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. The 1980 law is the controlling authority on public lands in Alaska and any Park Service regulations must 

conform with this law. 

I would like your assurance that the Department and the Park Service are committed to working with the State of Alaska, interested parties and Alaska Native 

groups in developing regulations which are consistent with the 1980 law. 

Additionally, Denali National Park recently issued its draft backcountry management plan. 

I am concerned that some of the alternatives, if implemented, would restrict public access to our Parks. 

Access to public lands is an issue that I have struggled to protect first as a solicitor your Department, in the Alaska State House, and in my 34 years in the Senate. 

I will oppose any plan which imposes unnecessary limits on the public’s right to 

visit their Parks. 

I understand that Denali’s superintendent and his staff have held public hearings 

and meetings on this management plan. 

I encourage these efforts in order to ensure that the final plan balances the protection of our natural resources with the public’s right to access for recreational, economic and social purposes. 

I am pleased with the proactive stance the administration has taken in the area 

of wildfire prevention and suppression through the healthy forests initiative. 

In recent years we have witnessed catastrophic fires which burned over 7.1 million acres, affecting several regions in the United States including Alaska. 

In Alaska, we have a particular problem with Spruce Bark beetles which have 

decimated spruce forests in the Kenai Peninsula area along the Kachemak Bay wa-
63

tershed and the Copper River basin near Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and preserve. 

The Spruce Bark beetle problem along with an extremely dry winter season in 

Alaska raises serious concerns for this coming fire season. 

I hope that your efforts in fire prevention and suppression will include funding 

to address Alaska’s Spruce Bark beetle problem. 

As you know, we have begun the fiscal year 2004 appropriations process. It has 

come to my attention that the committee does not have the most current data for 

public lands being administered by the Department of Interior. 

In order to appropriately allocate scarce resources towards the management of our 

public lands, I request that the Department provide the committee with statistics 

on federally owned land by agency in each State and Territory by acreage and percentage of total State area. 

These statistics should also include the total wilderness areas within each State.

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate that, and 

appreciate you dropping by this morning. 

Madame Secretary, again, welcome to the committee. We look 

forward to your statement. Your full statement will be made part 

of the record, if you want to summarize and hit the high points of 

what you would like to tell the committee. Thank you, and your 

guests, for coming this morning. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. GALE A. NORTON

Secretary NORTON. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a pleasure to once again address this committee and talk with 

you about our budget for fiscal year 2004. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight a number of our initiatives. 

I am accompanied today by Lynn Scarlett, who is our Assistant 

Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, and John Trezise, 

who is the Department’s Budget Director. 

Interior takes pride in its mission to protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage, provide scientific information about those resources, and honor our special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island 

communities. Our programs touch the lives of individuals across 

the Nation. How well we fulfill our mission influences whether 

farmers will have water and people can turn on the tap, whether 

our children will enjoy America’s vistas, places in history, and 

whether we can hike, bird watch, canoe, or hunt and fish in the 

great American outdoors. 

Our 2004 budget request lays the foundation for us to build a 

legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities. Our request for 

programs under the purview of this subcommittee is $9.8 billion. 

This is the largest Presidential request in the Department’s history. It is a 28 percent increase over the 2000 budget. 

The Department of the Interior is not quite self-supporting. We 

bring in $3 for every $4 in expenditures. The Department anticipates that it will collect $7.8 billion in revenue in 2004. 

TRUST REFORM INITIATIVES

As the chairman noted, our largest increase is in the area of 

trust reform initiatives. Fulfilling our trust responsibilities presents a major challenge. The challenge is both retrospective and 

prospective. We inherited a history of inadequate management of 

trust accounts. Our budget lays the groundwork for a better future. 
64

Our budget for Indian trust programs includes $554 million for 

trust operations and reform. Our budget proposal reflects new 

management concepts that grew out of consultation efforts, including a reorganization of Interior trust offices to improve delivery of 

services. The budget provides an increase of $183.8 million for 

trust programs, which is an increase of nearly 50 percent over 

2003. 

We also have a substantial increase for the Office of the Special 

Trustee, bringing it to $275 million. Within the Office of the Special Trustee request is $130 million for the Office of Historical 

Trust Accounting, an increase of $114 million over the 2003 level. 

These funds will provide a major down payment toward our plan 

to complete a historical accounting for individual Indian money accounts. We submitted a plan to the district court in the Cobell litigation on January 6 that outlines the details of how we would do 

that historical accounting. 

Once this accounting is completed, we should be able to resolve 

the disputes about whether the books are off by billions of dollars 

or the much smaller amounts that we expect. We hope to improve 

our management of our Indian trust program by consolidating our 

portfolio. Today we manage interests in land that are very tiny, as 

small as .00002 of an 80-acre tract of land. These areas often provide less than $1 a year in income to the owners. 

Fractionated interests in individual Indian-allotted land continue 

to expand exponentially as these small fractions pass through the 

generations. The 2004 budget proposes $21 million for Indian land 

consolidation, which is an increase of $13 million. These funds will 

enable us to expand our pilot efforts to reduce the fractionation of 

individual land ownership interest in a nationwide program. This 

is only a very small part of what will be needed to accomplish a 

nationwide consolidation of these lands. But it gives us an opportunity to begin tackling this problem seriously. 

Our budget also lays the foundations for leaving a legacy of 

healthy lands. Our request presents a blueprint for fulfilling the 

President’s vision of a new environmentalism of citizen stewards 

and cooperative conservation. Building partnerships lies at the 

heart of this effort. Enduring conservation needs many helping 

hands on the landscape. It requires a nation of citizen stewards. 

COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

Last year we proposed a cooperative conservation initiative. This 

year we are restructuring that program around our bureau challenge cost-share programs and cooperative conservation grant programs. It will tap into the tremendous potential that resides in conservation partnerships. It will better enable our land managers to 

join with Americans across the nation in caring for the land. Thousands of landowners and organizations remain on waiting lists to 

participate in our cooperative conservation grant programs. 

The 2004 budget includes $113 million for this initiative, including an increase of $9 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program. This will allow us to partner with 2,500 landowners and 

restore wetlands, uplands, and riparian habitats through voluntary 

conservation agreements. 
65

MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

As Senator Dorgan described, the maintenance backlog in the national parks has been a continuing problem. We need to take care 

of these lands. We need to take care of the buildings and infrastructure through which we serve the millions of visitors to our 

parks, refuges, and BLM recreation sites. We are continuing our 

commitment to fulfill the President’s pledge of addressing the 

maintenance backlog, proposing nearly $706 million for national 

park backlogs. 

To date, the National Park Service accomplishments have been 

impressive. But we still have more work to do. A key focus will be 

to improve park roads. Here, too, we are reaching out to partners. 

The Federal Highway Administration has helped us review our 

roads program to see how we can operate it more efficiently. And 

the budget request for maintenance of park roads is in the Department of Transportation budget as part of the Federal Lands Highway bill. 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Lands managed by Interior include working landscapes where 

ranchers, energy partners, and other entrepreneurs help ensure 

that Americans have food, can warm their homes, and have shelter 

for their families. Federally managed lands in onshore areas supply 

about a third of the Nation’s oil, natural gas, and coal. Our 2004 

budget provides $2 million to support the development of geothermal energy on public lands, as well as increased wind and 

solar energy opportunities. Our renewable energy program budget 

is more than five times the 2002 amount. 

Our budget also includes increased funding to facilitate the development of coal bed natural gas reserves, an abundant clean 

source of energy. 

INDIAN EDUCATION

No task is more important to all of our communities than educating our children. As we seek to educate our children, the President has committed to leave no child behind. At Interior, this commitment centers on the children educated at BIA schools and educated with Bureau assistance. The 2004 school operations request 

is over $529 million. The children also need safe, functional places 

to learn. Our budget includes a request to invest $293 million, including funds to replace at least seven decaying and dilapidated 

school facilities. 

RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES

Perhaps the closest connection that Americans have with the Department is through recreation opportunities. With almost 500 million visits to our public lands, Interior provides a wide array of recreational opportunities. We are seeing a dramatic increase in visitation to our Bureau of Land Management lands where we are requesting increased funding to enable BLM to continue to provide 

high quality recreational opportunities. 
66

EVERGLADES RESTORATION

Our Everglades restoration efforts also affirm the power of partnerships. As stewards of about one-half of the remaining Everglades ecosystem, the Department works with a broad team of Federal, State, and local partners. In 2004, the President’s budget included $112 million for Everglades activities, an increase of almost 

$28 million over the 2003 enacted level. 

Near these Everglades restoration efforts is Pelican Island, the 

Nation’s first national wildlife refuge established 100 years ago. We 

just celebrated the anniversary of the wildlife refuge system with 

large events there at Pelican Island. And our budget builds on last 

year’s historic increases for refuges with an increase of nearly $34 

million for refuge operations and maintenance, bringing the total 

to $402 million. Together, our increases for last year and this year 

set forth an additional $82 million increase in our national wildlife 

refuges. 

OTHER PROGRAM INITIATIVES

The fisheries program is also an important Fish and Wildlife 

Service activity. The budget recognizes this and includes a $7 million increase for the national fish hatchery system. 

The National Resource Challenge is an important component of 

the President’s commitment to improving natural resource management in our parks. It strengthens the scientific basis of knowledge 

about our national parks. Our budget includes nearly $9 million to 

increase this program. 

The Land and Water Conservation State Grant program is a cornerstone of our commitment to involve State governments in conservation planning. Our budget requests $160 million for the traditional State grant program, which is a $63 million increase over 

the 2003 level enacted by Congress. 

The President’s budget includes full funding for the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund at $900 million through a medley of programs that emphasize achieving LWCF goals through partnerships. 

We have two central resource protection goals. First is to leave a 

legacy of healthy lands by targeting our budget toward caring for 

the vast lands under our stewardship. Second is to extend our conservation and recreation achievements through partnerships. 

Through a mix of grant programs, we propose to leverage Federal 

LWCF dollars. These programs engage States, tribes, and other 

partners allowing us to achieve conservation and outdoor recreation 

goals across many lands and with many landowners. Through 

leveraging using conservation easements and other agreements, we 

are able to achieve more conservation than we would through fee 

acquisition alone. 

WILDLAND FIRE

There are two problems that we need to address in an ongoing 

way. And one of those that has attracted a lot of attention from 

this committee is the problem of wildland fire. Last year over 7 

million acres of Federal lands went up in flames during catastrophic wildfires. The President’s healthy forest initiative will help 
67

us reduce decades-long buildups of underbrush and unnaturally 

dense forests. 

The budget continues a high level of funding, $186 million, to reduce the buildup of brush, dead vegetation, and fire-prone invasive 

species. This will allow us to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The best approach for the long run is in building public-private partnerships. Stewardship contracting allows us to do that. 

Thanks to the subcommittee’s efforts, we now have stewardship 

contracting authority. We are moving forward with getting that in 

place, working with the Forest Service on some joint standards for 

those programs, and beginning to get our contracting going. 

SECURITY

We are also investing in greater security for our monuments and 

for public lands that border Mexico and Canada. The 2004 budget 

includes $46.8 million for increases in improved security to protect 

our visitors, employees, and resources. Over $10 million of this increase will be targeted to public lands located along the borders. 

An additional $34 million is slated for site security improvements 

at the Jefferson National Expansion Area in St. Louis, Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia, and the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument here in Washington. 

SCIENCE

At the foundation of all Interior’s efforts is scientific information, 

and it is the cornerstone of our research management activities, 

providing a basis for decisions about resource protection, use, recreation, and community-based programs. The 2004 budget proposes 

a $17 million increase for USGS to enhance science support to Interior’s bureaus to meet their high-priority needs and address other 

high-priority research needs, including invasive species control. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss our budget. 

We are working to better manage through partnerships. Our ability 

to leave a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities depends on how well we can build those partnerships. Our budget 

sets forth the tools through which we can accomplish those goals. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GALE A. NORTON

I am pleased to be here today before the Subcommittee on Interior and Related 

Agencies to discuss with you the fiscal year 2004 budget for the Department of the 

Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to highlight a number of important initiatives 

and to answer questions that you might have. 

As an introduction to our 2004 budget request, I’d like to offer some observations 

about the Department’s mission. We take a great deal of pride in our mission to: 

—Protect and manage the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; 

—Provide scientific information about those resources; and 

—Honor our special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives and affiliated Island Communities. 

Our responsibilities touch the lives of each individual across the Nation. How well 

we fulfill our mission influences: 

—Whether farmers will have water and people can turn on the tap; 

—Whether our children will enjoy America’s grand vistas, places, and history; 

—Whether we can hike, bird watch, canoe, or hunt and fish in the great American 

outdoors; and 

—Whether our landscapes are healthy and our communities are thriving. 
68

BUDGET OVERVIEW

Our 2004 $9.8 billion budget request provides the single clearest statement of how 

we plan to honor these commitments in the upcoming year. It lays the foundation 

for us to build a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities, including: 

—Resource Protection—Reflecting the Department’s multiple missions, the budget 

proposes $2.5 billion to fund programs that improve the health of landscapes, 

sustain biological communities, and protect cultural resources. 

—Serving Communities—The budget proposal includes $5.0 billion to serve communities through fire protection, generation of scientific information, education 

investments for American Indians, and through activities to fulfill responsibilities toward American Indians, Alaskan natives, and the Nation’s affiliated island communities. 

—Resource Use—Interior lands include many working landscapes where ranchers, 

energy partners, and other entrepreneurs help maintain thriving American 

communities and a dynamic economy. The budget includes $728 million to provide access for these important uses. 

—Recreation—$1.4 billion in fiscal year 2004 budget investments will ensure recreational opportunities for all Americans in the network of public lands, parks 

and refuges that the Department administers. 

In total, the 2004 budget is the largest presidential request in the Department’s 

history. The 2004 request includes $9.8 billion for programs funded in the Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, an increase of $369.8 million or 3.9 percent over the 2003 enacted level. Permanent funding that becomes available as a 

result of existing legislation without further action by the Congress will provide an 

additional $3.0 billion, for a total 2004 Interior budget of $12.8 billion. The Department anticipates that it will collect $7.8 billion in receipts in 2004, equivalent to 

73 percent of Interior’s current appropriations request. 

TRUST PROGRAMS

Over one-half of our $369.8 million increase for 2004 will fund trust reform initiatives. While the overall budget request is approximately 3.9 percent over the fiscal 

year 2003 request, our fiscal year 2004 Indian trust budget request is almost 50 percent higher than what was included in the 2003 appropriations act. 

Fulfilling our Trust responsibilities remains one of the Department’s greatest 

challenges. The Department has responsibility for the management of 100,000 

leases for individual Indians and Tribes on a land trust that encompasses approximately 56 million acres. Leasing, use permits, sale revenues, and interest of approximately $226 million per year are collected for approximately 230,000 individual 

Indian money accounts, and about $530 million per year are collected for approximately 1,400 tribal accounts per year. In addition, the trust manages approximately 

$2.8 billion in tribal funds and $400 million in individual Indian funds. 

Interior faces many challenges in reforming the management of its Indian trust 

responsibilities. First, the Department has not been well structured to focus on its 

trust duties. Second, fractionated interests in individual Indian allotted land continue to expand exponentially with each new generation. Today, there are approximately four million owner interests in the 10 million acres of individually owned 

trust lands. These four million interests could expand to 10 million interests by 

2030 unless an aggressive approach to fractionation is taken. There are now single 

pieces of property with ownership interests that are less than 0.000002 of the whole 

interest. 

Third, there are 230,000 open individual Indian money accounts, the majority of 

which have balances under $100 and annual transactions of less than $1,000. Interior maintains thousands of accounts that contain less than one dollar, and has a 

responsibility to provide an accounting to all account holders. Unlike most private 

trusts, the Federal Government bears the entire cost of administering the Indian 

trust. As a result, the usual incentives found in the commercial sector for reducing 

the number of accounts do not apply to the Indian trust. 

An increase of $114.1 million for the Office of Historical Trust accounting will 

support the Department’s plan to conduct a historical accounting for individual Indian money accounts and to account for funds in Tribal accounts. On January 6, 

2003, the Department presented a plan to the District Court in Cobell v. Norton for 

the historical accounting for about 260,000 IIM accounts. The work described in that 

Plan is expected to take five years to complete and is preliminarily estimated to cost 

approximately $335 million. The budget includes $130.0 million for these historical 

accounting activities. Funds also will be used to provide for historical accounting activities related to tribal accounts. 
69

The 2004 budget proposes $21.0 million for Indian land consolidation, an increase 

of $13.0 million, to expand pilot efforts to reduce the fractionation of individual land 

ownership interests into a nation-wide program. During 2003, we will establish a 

national program office, standardize business practices, and develop a strategic plan 

to guide expansion to more tribal reservations. 

Interior is reorganizing trust functions in BIA and OST. The new organization 

was developed after detailed analysis of the prior organization and a year-long consultation process with tribal leaders. In one of the most extensive consultation efforts ever undertaken by the senior management level at the Department on any 

issue relating to Indian Country, over 45 meetings with tribal leaders provided detailed findings and recommendations. The new organization reflects a synthesis of 

the views heard during the consultation process. It will meet fiduciary trust responsibilities, be more accountable at every level, and operate with people trained in the 

principles of trust management. The 2004 budget provides an increase of $15.0 million to support the new organization, which together with base funding available in 

BIA and OST will provide resources needed for the new organization in 2004. 

The proposed $183.8 million increase for trust management reforms includes 

funding to help rebuild Bureau of Indian Affairs information technology infrastructure to support trust and non-trust programs. The BIA’s information infrastructure 

and security use outmoded hardware and software that do not meet lifecycle management and systems architecture principles, and do not comply with the security 

requirements of OMB Circular A–130 and the Government Information Security Results Act. The Department requests IT funding for the significant new investments 

needed to address these challenges. The 2004 budget includes increases of $29.6 million for a ground-up rebuilding of the BIA IT infrastructure to support trust, as well 

as non-trust programs, and $2.5 million for Interior-wide IT security. The proposed 

rebuilding will fit within the enterprise architecture and includes full business cases 

for proposed investments. 

The 2004 budget also proposes an increase of $4.5 million to accelerate a new 

strategy to administer, manage, search, retrieve, and store trust records. Reform efforts to date have improved records collection and security. However, recent Interior 

reviews have resulted in a reassessment of the resource requirements needed to establish proper records retention schedules, establish and implement record keeping 

requirements, safeguard records, implement and maintain training programs, and 

meet records-retrieval needs in an effective and cost-efficient way. 

COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

The 2004 budget lays the foundation for a legacy of healthy lands, presenting a 

blueprint for fulfilling the President’s vision of a new environmentalism of citizen 

stewards and cooperative conservation. Building partnerships lies at the heart of 

this effort. Last year’s budget proposed a Cooperative Conservation Initiative. This 

year, our budget again includes a Cooperative Conservation Initiative, structured 

around bureau Challenge Cost Share programs and other existing cooperative conservation grant programs. 

The Cooperative Conservation Initiative, funded at $113.2 million, will empower 

citizen stewards to conserve and protect natural resources, while also achieving important community and economic goals. The Initiative builds on existing conservation partnership programs and will provide new and expanded opportunities for 

landowners, land managers, and others to participate in projects that foster innovation and create incentives for stewardship. Our budget also provides funds for a 

public lands volunteers program. 

The 2004 CCI request builds upon Interior’s long history of working collaboratively with others. It builds on existing conservation partnership programs, including the challenge cost share programs of the Bureau of Land Management, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, as well as FWS’s Partners for Fish 

and Wildlife program, Coastal program and Migratory Bird Joint Venture program. 

This initiative also funds a program of volunteers to increase public awareness of, 

and appreciation for, natural and cultural resource protection. 

The CCI request includes a $9.1 million increase for the Partners for Fish and 

Wildlife program, the largest increase ever provided to this program. The Fish and 

Wildlife Service will partner with 2,500 additional landowners on the program’s 

waiting list. These new partnerships will restore an additional 19,298 acres of wetlands; 83,601 acres of native grasslands, forest and other uplands; and 241 miles 

of riparian and in-stream habitat over 2003 levels. 
70

CONSERVATION GRANTS

The Private Stewardship grants and the Landowner Incentive Program recognize 

continuing opportunities for conservation of endangered and threatened species 

through partnerships with private landowners. The budget request includes $50.0 

million for Private Stewardship grants and the Landowner Incentive program. Interest in the State portion of the program is high, with over 80 grant requests totaling $61.0 million for the program’s first year. 

The 2004 budget request includes a comprehensive, partnership approach to meeting the President’s commitment for fully funding the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. The 2004 LWCF program includes $662.4 million for the Department. It emphasizes conservation partnerships with States, Tribes, local communities, and private citizens, including a strong State grant program, and reduced Federal land acquisition. This proposal recognizes the costs of adding to the significant land holdings that are already managed by the Department and our commitment to take better care of these lands. It also recognizes the value and cost-effectiveness of partnerships. We can accomplish our conservation goals by conserving endangered and at 

risk species through conservation easements, working with private landowners to 

enhance habitat for endangered and at risk species, and other innovative partnership approaches. 

CONSERVING WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

March 14, 2003 marks a milestone in the history of wildlife conservation in America-the centennial anniversary of the national wildlife refuge system. Reflecting the 

importance of this event and the record of conservation established through this 

unique system of lands and resources, the 2004 budget builds on last year’s historic 

$48.4 million budget increase for the national wildlife refuge system by requesting 

a total of $402.0 million for refuge operations and maintenance, an increase of $33.6 

million over 2003 appropriation levels. The total budget request for the Fish and 

Wildlife Service is $1.3 billion. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service fisheries program has played a vital role in conserving and managing fish and other aquatic resources. The 2004 budget enhances 

the Federal contribution to aquatic resource conservation partnerships, by providing 

$103.6 million for the FWS fisheries program. The request includes an $3.9 million 

increase for operation and maintenance of the national fish hatchery system’s hatcheries, fish health centers, and fish technology centers. Also included is a $1.0 million 

increase to combat aquatic nuisance species, part of the larger, coordinated interdepartmental effort discussed below. 

OTHER PARTNERSHIPS

As stated earlier, the 2004 budget is based on a vision of partnerships and leaving 

a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities resulting from efforts to work 

together across landscapes and across communities. The 2004 budget sets forth the 

tools through which these partnerships can flourish and leave a legacy of healthy 

lands and thriving communities 

The Department’s parks, refuges, and public lands host nearly 500 million visitors 

a year and provide access for economic uses, activities that fuel the economic engines for communities adjacent to our Federal lands. Recognizing that the Department’s decisions can greatly impact these gateway communities, the Department is 

working in partnership with the people who live on the private lands that border 

these areas and developing collaborative approaches to address local issues. 

Everglades.—The Everglades restoration effort also affirms the power of partnerships. As stewards of about one-half of the remaining Everglades ecosystem, the Interior Department works with a broad team of Federal, State and local partners. 

In 2004, the President’s budget includes $112.3 million for Interior Everglades activities, an increase of $27.8 million above 2003 enacted appropriations. The request 

includes $40.0 million to protect the Big Cypress National Preserve by acquiring the 

Collier family’s mineral right holdings. 

Exemplifying the partnership approach to this restoration effort, the Department 

is building stronger coalitions to implement the restoration program, including: 

—Forming an advisory committee for public input to land managers in South 

Florida on a wide range of issues; 

—Providing scientific expertise to the State and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

to meet the objectives of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan; and 

—Taking steps to ensure that appropriate quantities of water are distributed at 

the right times and in the right places to restore the unique Everglades ecosystem. 
71

Invasive Species.—The Department is participating in an interagency performance 

budget to promote invasive species management that is being coordinated by the 

National Invasive Species Council. The 2004 budget proposes $57.5 million for the 

Department’s portion of this interagency effort. 

At this funding level, Interior will participate in the control and management of 

tamarisk and giant salvinia in the southwest; conduct ballast water research; control and eradicate nutria in the Chesapeake Bay and in Louisiana; plan early detection and rapid response to eradicate outbreaks of sudden oak death in eastern hardwood forests of the central Appalachian Mountains; and develop a marine invasive 

species early detection warning system. 

Abandoned Mine Reclamation and Clean Streams.—Through partnerships the Office of Surface Mining is restoring streams impacted by coal mining. Its Clean 

Streams program involves State and local groups to enhance miles of riparian areas. 

The President’s budget request includes $281.2 million for State and Federal programs to protect the environment during coal mining, assure prompt reclamation 

after mining, and clean up abandoned mine lands. The request will enable OSM to 

continue directly administering Federal regulatory and reclamation programs in 

States that do not operate their own surface mining programs as well as on Federal 

and Indian lands, and to reclaim 6,900 acres of disturbed land and other hazards 

that threaten human health and welfare and environmental quality. 

Payment of Lieu of Taxes.—The President’s proposal calls for $200.0 million for 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes, to compensate States for Federal lands that cannot be 

taxed by local governments. The 2004 budget proposes to move the program from 

the Bureau of Land Management to the Departmental Management account to reflect the breadth of this program. The lands on which the payments are made are 

administered by the NPS, FWS, and USDA Forest Service, as well as by the Bureau 

of Land Management. 

WILDLAND FIRE AND HEALTHY FORESTS

Building a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities means applying a 

healing hand to the landscape. The Department is advancing the President’s 

Healthy Forests Initiative to reduce decades-long build-ups of underbrush and unnaturally dense forests. 

The budget proposes $698.7 million for wildfire prevention and suppression and 

Healthy Forest initiatives in fiscal year 2004. This is a $48.5 million, or 7.5 percent 

increase over last year’s budget proposal. The request includes continued funding 

for a robust fuels treatment program at $186.2 million, 400 percent above spending 

in 2000. At this funding level, the Department will treat 307,000 high priority acres 

in the wildland-urban interface and an additional 768,000 acres that are not in the 

wildland-urban interface. 

The Department is also taking a number of steps to improve the productivity and 

performance of the fuels program that will help the Department’s firefighting bureaus take maximum advantage of the opportunity for fuels treatment projects at 

the beginning of the fiscal year when weather and workload conditions for fuels 

treatments are optimal. The Department is accelerating project planning and selection, issuing policy guidance and proposed legislative language designed to facilitate 

and expand contracting in the fuels program, and issuing policy guidance to expedite the budget allocation process for the fuels program and individual projects. 

The fuels treatment program is key to restoring forests and rangelands to longterm health and preventing damage caused by catastrophic wildfires. One approach 

to improving forest health that holds promise is stewardship contracting. Stewardship contracts allow the private sector, non-profit organizations, and local communities to productively use materials generated from forest thinning. 

The 2004 budget proposal also calls for $282.7 million for fire preparedness, including increased funding for aviation contract costs. The fire suppression request 

of $195.3 million reflects a $36.0 million increase to fund suppression operations at 

the revised 10-year average. This funding level will provide resources to respond to 

an ‘‘average’’ fire year without having to rely on emergency borrowing that can be 

disruptive to other Interior programs. The Department is also working to develop 

new and improved current cost control strategies for suppression. The budget also 

includes $24.5 million for rehabilitating burned areas. Timely stabilization and rehabilitation of severely burned areas are critical to prevent further damage due to 

erosion, loss of soil nutrients, and the introduction and spread of invasive species. 

The budget also continues funding for Rural Fire Assistance at $10.0 million. Frequently, local firefighting departments are the first responders to wildland fires on 

public lands and play a vital role in preventing fires from escaping initial attack 

and becoming exponentially more expensive to suppress. In 2002, the Department 
72

assisted 5,349 rural and volunteer fire departments through grants, technical assistance, training, supplies, equipment, and public education support. 

HELPING TO MEET THE NATION’S ENERGY NEEDS

Interior plays a central role in meeting the Nation’s energy needs. Conservation, 

renewable energy, and traditional energy sources all play an intertwined role in 

helping the Nation meet these needs. The budget supports the President’s and the 

Department’s goal for increasing domestic energy supplies from a variety of sources, 

in an environmentally acceptable manner, with a special emphasis on developing renewable energy sources on Federal lands. The 2004 budget request includes an increase of $444,000 for activities on the North Slope, for a total of $8.4 million. Funding will support planning for sales in 

the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and, if authorized, the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge. Congressional authorization will be required for a lease sale to be 

conducted in ANWR. 

The budget requests an increase of $2.0 million for BLM to strengthen inspection 

and enforcement activities, targeted primarily to the Powder River and San Juan 

basins. The budget also proposes a $500,000 increase to expand resource monitoring 

to improve assessment of the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development, especially on cultural resources and species at risk. The 2004 budget includes $2.0 million for renewable energy resources. This in- cludes an increase of $100,000 over 2003 enacted appropriations to support the development of geothermal, wind, and solar energy on public land. This is more than 

five times the 2002 funding level for these programs. 

The Outer Continental Shelf is projected to produce over 25 percent of both the 

Nation’s oil and natural gas in 2003. The Minerals Management Service is the primary steward of the mineral resources on the OCS. The MMS appropriations request of $171.3 million includes an increase of $1.6 million to meet increased workload brought about by the demand for Outer Continental Shelf program services in 

the Gulf of Mexico. The 2004 budget includes a total of $11.6 million, an increase 

of $2.9 million over 2003 funding levels for MMS to employ innovative business 

processes and advances in electronic technology in the offshore program. The budget 

also includes an increase of $300,000 to investigate the energy resource potential 

found in methane hydrate formations. The MMS will also invest an additional $3.0 

million to operate and maintain its minerals revenue management and royalty-inkind systems. 

The 2004 BIA request includes a $2.0 million increase for grants to Tribes to 

evaluate mineral resource potential on tribal trust and restricted lands. The request 

also includes $1.0 million to help Tribes expedite the development of tribal regulations governing mineral leasing and permitting, and rights-of-way of tribal lands required under the Energy Policy Act, 2002. 

TAKING CARE OF PARKS

Complementing the Department’s cooperative conservation commitments is a continued investment in taking care of National Parks. The President’s budget proposes 

a $2.4 billion budget for the National Park Service, an increase of $131.4 million 

above 2003 appropriations. 

This budget continues the Department’s commitment to fulfill the President’s 

pledge of addressing the maintenance backlog in National Parks, proposing $705.8 

million this year toward this effort, an increase of $54.1 million, nearly an eight percent increase over 2003. The budget includes an increase of $16.3 million for cyclic 

maintenance. This increase will provide additional funds for regular maintenance 

activities and will help the NPS keep pace with its maintenance needs and prevent 

additional projects from becoming deferred. It also includes an additional $16.7 million for the repair and rehabilitation program and a $4.7 million increase for comprehensive condition assessments at parks. Data collected through the condition assessments will be used in 2004 to evaluate progress in eliminating the deferred 

maintenance backlog, as measured by a facility condition index. 

To date, our accomplishments are impressive. For example, the Many Glacier 

Hotel at Glacier National Park was built in 1914. A highly recognized National 

Landmark, this facility signifies an important period in the development of the National Park Service. Due to the harsh climate and insufficient maintenance in the 

past, this important landmark had deteriorated to a stage where emergency stabilization was necessary. The Department is in the process of stabilizing this important facility. 

But we still have more work to do. A key focus in the 2004 budget will be to improve park roads. Here, too, the Department is reaching out to partners. A signed 
73

memorandum of agreement with the Federal Highway Administration will help us 

achieve our road maintenance goals efficiently. The Department of Transportation’s 

2004 budget proposes $300.0 million in 2004 for Park road repair as part of the reauthorization of TEA–21, bringing the total park maintenance budget to over $1 billion. 

In the National Park Service, the Natural Resource Challenge helps Park managers improve resource management by strengthening the scientific base of knowledge about park resources. Our budget proposes $76.1 million, an $9.0 million increase over 2003, for the program. This increase will provide a three-year cumulative total increase of over $104 million above the 2001 level. The Natural Resource 

Challenge is an integral component of President Bush’s ongoing commitment to improving natural resource management in Parks. 

INDIAN EDUCATION

No task is more important to the American community than educating its children. In education, the President has committed to ‘‘leave no child behind.’’ At Interior, this commitment centers on the 48,000 children educated at schools operated 

by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or by Tribes under BIA grants or contracts. 

The budget request for Indian education continues the President’s commitment 

with a robust $528.5 million school operations budget request, including funding for 

teacher pay increases. The budget includes $3.0 million to establish a separate fund 

for new administrative cost grants to encourage more Tribes to exercise their authority to operate BIA schools by providing full funding for start-up costs for the 

first year of tribal operation of bureau-operated schools. 

Children deserve safe, functional places to learn. The 2004 budget invests $292.6 

million in school facilities, including funds to replace at least seven high priority 

school facilities and to repair schools identified in the Indian school maintenance 

backlog. The President’s goal is to eliminate the backlog by 2006. 

RECREATION

With almost 500 million visits each year to the Department’s lands, Interior provides a wide array of recreational opportunities, including fishing, hiking, hunting, 

camping, and wildlife viewing. Public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management provide recreational venues for a growing population in the West, hosting 

over 60 million visitors annually. 

The 2004 budget requests $48.7 million to enable the Bureau of Land Management to continue to provide quality recreational opportunities. BLM will address 

transportation and access needs and challenges, expand interpretive and other visitor services, and support greater outreach and consultation efforts to help resolve 

user conflicts in the face of growing visitation. 

In recreation as in conservation, partnering is central to achieve our recreation 

goals. The Department depends on the contributions of 200,000 volunteers, almost 

three times Interior’s Federal workforce, to help address resource protection and 

public recreation needs. Over 126,000 volunteers work in parks, the rest work in 

refuges, public lands, and other Interior sites across the country. In 2004 volunteers 

will assist NPS staff with important park projects including the Lewis and Clark 

bicentennial, the Powered Flight centennial, and the Jamestown 400th anniversary. 

The budget request proposes to increase funding by $1.5 million for partnership efforts and volunteer recruitment and training. A $1.0 million increase is aimed at 

bolstering volunteer participation and improving park capacity to supervise, train, 

and reward volunteers. An increase of $500,000 will allow NPS to establish full time 

volunteer coordinators to manage an expanding program. 

The Department’s partnerships include working with States. Today, the LWCF 

State grant program is a cornerstone of the Secretary’s commitment to involve State 

governments in conservation and recreation activities. This program, enacted in 

1965, helps States develop and maintain high quality recreation areas and stimulate 

non-Federal investments in the protection and maintenance of recreation resources 

across the United States. Reflecting the President’s goals, the Interior LWCF program seeks to promote cooperative alliances, leave land on State tax roles, and 

achieve conservation goals by emphasizing innovative alternatives to fee simple title 

purchases, such as conservation easements and land exchanges. This emphasis also 

enables Interior land management agencies to focus more funds on caring for lands 

already under their management. 

The President’s budget fully funds the Land and Water Conservation Fund at 

$900.7 million. The LWCF proposal calls for $160.0 million in State grants, an increase of $62.6 million over the 2003 funding level enacted by the Congress. 
74

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY

The budget requests increases for Interior’s law enforcement and security programs. The funding would be used to hire additional law enforcement officers, for 

law enforcement agreements with States and localities, additional training, and 

physical hardening of key visitor sites, all of which will improve security operations 

Department-wide. The increase of $46.8 million is earmarked for strengthening law 

enforcement and security operations at Interior refuges, parks, and public lands, including along the U.S. borders with Mexico and Canada. Included within this increase is funding for site security improvements at the Jefferson National Expansion Area in St. Louis, Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, and 

the Jefferson Memorial and Washington Monument in Washington, D.C. 

SCIENCE

All of the Department’s efforts require good information. Scientific information is 

the cornerstone for Interior’s natural resource management activities, providing a 

basis for making decisions about resource protection, resource use, recreation, and 

community-based programs. The USGS has the principle responsibility within Interior to provide its bureaus the earth and natural science information and research 

necessary to manage the Nation’s natural resources. 

The President’s 2004 budget proposes $895.5 million for the USGS. The budget 

includes $17.1 million in new program increases above the 2003 conference level for 

high priority research needs, including invasive species control and management 

and increased capability to address science needs for Interior bureaus. 

CONCLUSION

The Interior Department’s responsibilities lie at the confluence of people, land, 

and water. The 2004 budget funds programs that support our broad and multiple 

missions. Leaving a legacy of healthy lands and thriving communities requires resources, creativity, and, above all, collaboration. The 2004 budget supports this vision of forging partnerships. 

This concludes my overview of the 2004 budget proposal for the Department of 

the Interior and my written statement. I will be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have.

HISTORICAL TRUST ACCOUNTING

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Madame Secretary. 

We have spent numerous occasions discussing your inheritance of 

one of the most frustrating court cases in recent memory. However, 

the recently released summary of the Ernst and Young analysis of 

the five lead plaintiffs’ accounts raises questions about whether 

historical accounting is a wise use of Federal resources. If you 

could, would you please give us a quick update on the court’s actions over the past few months, and how those actions impact your 

2004 request? 

Secretary NORTON. We submitted plans to the courts in January 

that set forth how we would go about doing an historical accounting and how we would improve the overall management of our 

trust programs to address some specific deficiencies identified by 

the court. We are preparing now for a trial that is set to occur 

starting in May that will cover those plans. The court will in essence be looking both at our plan and the plans that were submitted by the plaintiffs and evaluating those. 

We also have, ongoing, an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals 

from the decision that held myself and the Assistant Secretary for 

Indian Affairs, Neil McCaleb, in contempt of court. The oral argument on that will take place on April 24. 

Senator BURNS. What message should this committee take from 

the Ernst and Young report? 
75

Secretary NORTON. I think it helps illustrate the difficulty that 

we have in trying to resolve these issues. On the one hand, we 

have the plaintiffs’ attorneys, who are estimating the damages that 

the Department and the Federal Government would owe to individual Indian account holders at $137 billion. On the other hand, 

the Ernst and Young report, which looks at the accounts of specified individuals, found that there was, in reviewing approximately 

2,900 transactions, a $60 account error. So we have a wide divergence of opinion about the accuracy of the books that were handled 

by the Department of the Interior over time. 

In essence, what we are doing through the historical accounting 

is verifying our bank ledgers. We have the account ledgers that say 

how much was given to individuals, how much was deposited, and 

what was received. The question is trying to find external documents that verify those account records. The court has asked us to 

find that external documentation. 

We submitted to you all a plan for doing a complete historical accounting and finding all of the documents that would support those 

transactions. That basically would have cost about $2.4 billion to 

do all of that accounting. We then revised that in the report that 

we gave to you, and the basis for our budget is to use statistical 

sampling on smaller transactions, as opposed to going through 

transaction by transaction. 

We will still look at all of the transactions over $5,000 individually and in certain other categories of transactions and account for 

those in a detailed way. The others we would propose to use statistical sampling. 

Senator BURNS. Do you see an end to this? 

Secretary NORTON. Our plan would basically have us complete 

all of that accounting in 5 years. That would basically be a $335 

million project over that time to complete that accounting. At that 

point, we would have what we view as a definitive answer as to 

how much those books might be off. 

Senator BURNS. Looking at it from this perspective, we do not see 

an end to it. Either that, or we are not getting the right signals, 

or I am not smart enough to figure it out. Probably a combination 

of the two. It seems to me that this is something we do not know 

how we got into, and we have had very few answers on how to get 

out of it, until you came into office. I congratulate you on your commitment to straighten this out. I hope you have enough time to see 

it through to its completion. 

INDIAN SCHOOLS

I want to ask you about the situation with the Indian schools. 

I know the President cut some funds out of Indian education. Then 

the subcommittee put them back in, especially this past year, we 

put $1.7 million back into Indian education. Can I get an answer 

to why—the enacted 2003 level was functionally $1.7 million over 

the 2002 level after an across-the-board reduction? That sounds 

confusing, but I guess up here people can walk their way through 

that. 

Despite the increase, Title I TTCs are faced with an $8-per-student reduction. The BIA split the reduction as follows: Approximately 23 percent of the total increase allocated to the Dine Col-
76

lege due to Dine stance as a Title II, which is a boarding school; 

this amounted to an increase of approximately $60 per student. 

The Title I schools also sought an enrollment increase of approximately 300 Indian students. As a result, the remaining, to be put 

into the formula for Title I schools, resulted in a decrease of $8 per 

student in fiscal year 2003. 

I would like to know how we come up with those kinds of figures. 

Can anyone respond to that? John, can you enlighten us? 

DIFFERENT FUNDING CATEGORIES

Mr. TREZISE. Senator Burns, your figures are correct. This is a 

situation that arises from the authorizing legislation which authorizes two categories of colleges, which are funded on the basis of different formulas. In addition to the colleges authorized in the TCC 

Act, we have two colleges which have traditionally been funded by 

the Congress outside of the Act, which are funded on yet other 

basis. So we have four different funding levels on a per-student 

basis. 

This is a situation, I think, that does warrant some consideration. Specifically with respect to 2003, though, your figures are 

correct. But I would point out that of the increase of $1.7 million 

over the 2003 enacted level, or $3.6 million over the President’s 

budget, 77 percent was devoted to the Title I colleges. This is an 

increase over the President’s budget of about $2.7 to $2.8 million. 

The per-student funding went down, despite that increase, because the number of students which we were expecting, which we 

actually have in school this year, in 2003, is higher than the student level in 2002. 

Senator BURNS. It sounds like we are going to have to change the 

way we fund our colleges. I do not like the idea of being discriminatory one against the other. And when we try to do the overall good 

for everybody, it seems like we have not attained that degree of 

fairness. 

Senator Dorgan. 

Secretary NORTON. Mr. Chairman, anticipating a question from 

Senator Dorgan, since this is all on the same topic, we have had 

some discussions previously as to the United Tribes Technical College. I have asked the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, the 

acting Assistant Secretary, to work with you all. It may be appropriate to bring that college into the same funding category, which 

it is my understanding would require a statutory change, as well 

as the Crown Point Institute of Technology, which is the other one 

that has usually been independently funded. 

I am not familiar enough with the rest of the differences in the 

funding, but this might make sense as a time to try to wrap all of 

that into an examination of the authorizing basis for those appropriations. 

Senator BURNS. I think you have a point. I am not versed enough 

in exactly how those stages are funded, or in what categories they 

fall. So I will have to do a little looking into this. It seems unfair 

that funds dedicated to community colleges found on reservations 

are increased or restored. And then what we receive per student 

decreases. 
77

I have an idea that we might have been remiss in not identifying 

where those funds were to go. So it seems that the ‘‘haves’’ got, and 

the ‘‘have nots’’ got less. I find that inherently unfair. 

Senator Dorgan. 

INDIAN EDUCATION

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Again, Secretary Norton, thank you for being here. Let me start 

on the point that the chairman finished with; that is, Indian education. First of all, I think tribal colleges are remarkably successful. Let me tell you about—since we take a lot away from these 

hearings, I want you to take something away in terms of an anecdotal story about Indian colleges. 

There is a young woman in North Dakota named Loretta that I 

have known for a good many years. Loretta Delong is her name. 

And she lived in a two-room log house on an Indian reservation. 

She stuttered. She was painfully shy, wore hand-me-down clothes. 

She was called a savage at school. And she wondered, you know, 

what it would take to be noticed. She reached the seventh grade. 

She got into all kinds of trouble. She dropped out of school, had a 

child, was involved in substance abuse. And she is now a Ph.D. 

When I see Loretta, I call her Dr. Delong. 

She got her life turned around and is a remarkable contributor 

to the Indian reservation on the Turtle Mountain Reservation. And 

it happened because of tribal colleges, the availability and opportunity for people to go to college and have their extended family be 

involved in childcare and all the things that allow somebody to get 

up and out and do something for themselves. 

There are many other stories. I simply mention Loretta because 

she is happy for me to do that, and I am proud of what she has 

done. 

TRIBAL COLLEGES FUNDING

It just makes no sense to me to be reducing the funding for tribal 

colleges at a time when we are already substantially short of the 

support per student that exists in the rest of the country. The Tribal College Act authorizes funding of $6,000 per full-time Indian 

student. It has currently funded about $3,900. That is 45 percent 

below the $7,180 spent by the non-Indian community colleges. So 

these colleges are already underfunded. And this is just a recommendation that we will have to change, I believe. 

With respect to your point about Crown Point and United Tribes, 

it would not make much sense to me to put them into the rest of 

the tribal colleges, if the other batch is already underfunded. For 

almost a quarter of a century, we have provided funding for Crown 

Point and United Tribes, which are unique tribal technical colleges 

that serve, in the case of United Tribes, dozens of States’ American 

Indian populations. 

So, I mean, the suggestion that we should put them in with the 

rest of the tribal colleges does not make sense. What is suggested 

here in the budget is let us de-fund United Tribes and then let us 

cut the other tribal colleges. My guess is you will say: ‘‘Well, this 

is a matter of choice and priorities.’’ But would you not agree that 

this should be a priority, tribal college funding should and must be 
78

a priority, and cutting them at this point, when they are so far 

below the support that is given to non-Indian community colleges, 

that that is not a fair recommendation? 

Secretary NORTON. Senator, if I can point out a few things. First 

of all, the tribal college funding has increased by over 62 percent 

since 1993, while the enrollment has increased by 11 percent. So 

there is certainly considerably more funding than there has been 

in the past. The funding for tribal colleges was increased by $3.6 

million in the 2003 Appropriations Act, but our budget was formulated before that final congressional action. So it does not reflect 

that 2003 increase. 

Senator DORGAN. Would you support that increase? If the budget 

were formulated now, do you think that would be included? And 

would you support that? 

Secretary NORTON. We have a couple of different things going on 

here. One is the base level of funding for that. We are certainly interested in working with you all for next year on improvements 

needed in our funding structure, to work on that approach with 

you. 

The other issue has been those items that have been earmarked 

from outside any authorization. That causes problems for us and 

will continue to cause problems, as I have said. It is much more 

difficult for us to fund something that does not have any standards, 

does not have a program, is simply an add-on to our other programs. There is no way of evaluating whether that is treating fairly those particular colleges in comparison with other colleges. 

Senator DORGAN. Yes, but you——

Secretary NORTON. We would certainly like to see something, and 

we would be very happy to work with you on something that would 

look at those on a more across-the-board kind of basis. 

Senator DORGAN. But I do not understand that. These are—for 

example, United Tribes Technical College is easily accredited, identified by all as a remarkable institution, visited by yourself and by 

the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I mean, I have never 

heard anyone suggest this is not worth funding. So I understand 

your point about ‘‘Let’s make sure that we are always funding 

things that work,’’ but there has never been a question that I am 

aware of that this is not, both this and Crown Point are not, good 

educational institutions. So de-funding them just makes no sense 

to me. 

Secretary NORTON. It is a question of trying to prioritize our 

funding. And, you know, we have increased funding for elementary 

and secondary schools. We have a $16 million increase enacted over 

there. These are good programs. We do continue to support the 

funding of the tribal college programs. We have had to make some 

tough choices this year with, as you all have mentioned, the increased funding that we needed for historical accounting for Indian 

trust programs. 

WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

Senator DORGAN. But you know what? In terms of priorities, I 

was just looking here, we have $31 million for the wild horse and 

burro management program, including Adopt-a-Horse. So $31 mil-
79

lion for that and $39 million for all the tribal colleges in America? 

I mean, I am not sure I understand that. 

In terms of choices, I want us to make good choices and right 

choices. And it is not the right choice to de-fund United Tribes 

Technical College. And it is not the right choice to come in with a 

funding recommendation that is below what the tribal colleges received last year. There is bipartisan support. Senator Domenici is 

not here, but you know he would be more aggressive than I am 

even on these issues. And I know the chairman feels the same way. 

So I understand your point about choices, but it is very important to make the right choices. And I think Indian education is 

very important. 

Senator BURNS. Do you want to switch that money from the burros over to schools? 

Senator DORGAN. Well, I tell you what I am going to do. I did 

not even know about the program until I was reading last evening. 

I am trying to go through. This is a big agency, as I said. You have 

quite a job, a lot of things. And I was not aware that the wild 

horse—I knew we had a wild horse and burro management. I also 

knew that we had an Adopt-a-Horse program. But I did not know 

we spent $31 million on it. And I do not know how many horses 

there are, but I am going to divide the number of horses into the 

$31 million to find out how much per horse we are spending. Because I used to raise horses. My dad used to raise horses. And, in 

fact, the program in here talking about gentling horses, I do not 

think anybody in Montana has ever uttered that, nor have we in 

North Dakota. You do not gentle horses; you break horses. I would 

like to know what they are spending on gentling horses, because 

we have some young men and women in North Dakota who will do 

that pretty cheaply and do it pretty well. And I suppose in Montana you have some as well. 

But at any rate, my point is not to—I love horses. I have not 

been around burros much, so I cannot profess any love for burros. 

But I do want to find out how much per animal we are spending 

here and how we are spending——

Senator BURNS. I saw one on your jacket the other day. 

Senator DORGAN. Is that right? 

They call it donkey where I come from. 

Senator BURNS. Oh, yes. 

NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

Senator DORGAN. It would not be fair to you if I did not mention 

the NAWS funding. That is not the province of this subcommittee, 

but it is in your agency. And you will appear before another subcommittee of mine on this. But as you know, the folks in Minot, 

North Dakota, and northwestern North Dakota are really upset, 

and that is a mild way of saying it, upset about the proposal not 

to fund NAWS. 

We have had the groundbreaking. Construction is under way. 

And the proposal is to stop that by, I understand, the Office of 

Management and Budget with a new program. It is called PART, 

I believe it is. Is it PART? And I am not doing this—what does 

PART mean? 

Secretary NORTON. Program Assessment Rating Tool. 
80

Senator DORGAN. Right. I am involved in a formal program assessment rating of the Office of Management and Budget. And I 

have just a preliminary estimate of that. And it really does not look 

good for OMB. 

But no one has suggested, for example, that the NAWS program, 

which is, as I said, under construction, is anything other than a 

stellar program and the continuation of a promise that was made 

to the people of North Dakota as a result of being willing to host 

a half-a-million-acre flood that came and stayed. And then just out 

of the blue we discovered this de-funding because of PART, I believe, from OMB. So tell me again, how does OMB justify recommending we not fund this program? 

Secretary NORTON. There are several factors that went into their 

rating tool. One of the things that they looked at was the difference 

between the number of people served per million dollars under this 

program compared to other Federal agency programs. They found 

that the Bureau of Reclamation, on average, serves 363 people per 

million dollars, whereas the USDA program serves almost 1,800 

people. EPA serves almost 1,700 people. So that was one of their 

concerns as to why Interior’s program was different than those 

other programs. 

RURAL WATER PROGRAM LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

We are moving forward to address some of the problems that 

were identified in terms of lack of goals and consistency in the program. We do have underway a legislative proposal being developed 

that would establish a reclamation rural water program with adequate controls and clear guidelines for project development. 

It would provide a two-pronged approach that involves pursuing 

new general authority for reviewing, planning, prioritization, and 

construction of rural water projects, combined with administrative 

measures that would improve the program. It would eliminate the 

piecemeal approach that we currently experience. As we have discussed previously, there is no overarching rural water program 

that the Bureau of Reclamation has through which we have standardized funding or standardized approaches. That was one of 

OMB’s concerns, that we try to put that in place instead of doing 

piecemeal projects. 

This legislative proposal would provide that type of overarching 

program. It would allow the Department and the administration to 

set priorities and control the process and would thereby limit the 

problems that were identified by OMB. It would also involve other 

interested parties in the planning, design, and construction of rural 

water supply projects. 

Although this is still in the formative stages, we will be happy 

to work with you on further developing that overarching program. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, let me understand this because when a 

project is underway or under construction, and the groundbreaking 

has taken place and, therefore, we have a project under construction, it seems to me you stop that project only if you believe that 

project is not worthy. Is the administration suggesting that the 

NAWS project is not a worthy project? 

Secretary NORTON. The evaluation that was done was based on 

identification of goals and seeing whether we were meeting the 
81

goals of the project. It is the same kind of evaluation that is taking 

place on Federal programs across the board. Based on that approach, OMB found that this particular program fared more poorly 

than other programs. They made the choice to put the funding into 

the programs that did better in this kind of an approach. 

Senator DORGAN. But the distinction here is you are using the 

word ‘‘program,’’ not project. The OMB described this program as 

not meeting certain goals. It made no such judgment about this 

project. Is that not correct? 

Secretary NORTON. This was based on, as we said, an overall assessment of the effectiveness of this rural water project or several 

rural water projects. It combines with an evaluation of those in 

comparison to other departments’ similar programs. 

Senator DORGAN. Has Governor Hoven talked to you about this 

issue? 

Secretary NORTON. Yes, he has. 

Senator DORGAN. It is interesting to me, if you look at the map, 

about where these cuts came. I will talk to you more about that 

in the other subcommittee. But I am still not understanding. I 

guess you are saying something to me that is different now than 

what you said when you testified before the Energy Committee. I 

think you are saying——

Secretary NORTON. I am saying we have made progress in getting some of these problems resolved. 

Senator DORGAN. At which point would you then recommend continuing funding of a project that is under construction? 

Secretary NORTON. Once we get this in place, we would be focusing on fiscal year 2005 and working with you on getting legislation 

put in place and then work on funding things on that legislation. 

Senator DORGAN. So the administration’s recommendation is that 

even if this project is finally determined to be worthy, that we 

should delay it for a year? 

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING

Secretary NORTON. The findings of the program assessment rating are that we need to look at those programs that are working, 

that are providing what they are supposed to provide, and to fund 

the things that are working. And this, by having come out low on 

that rating, by not having clearly-defined goals, means that we are 

going forward with something that is not coming out as high on 

providing value to the taxpayers. 

Senator DORGAN. But let me just—Mr. Chairman, I do not know 

what your time situation is, but I do want to just finish this point. 

You know, Montana and North Dakota did not rush to Washington to ask if we could host some floods in reservoirs and so on. 

I mean, we did not beg Washington to have a Rhode Island-sized 

flood come in North Dakota and stay there forever. Washington 

asked us to be the host to a permanent flood of half a million acres. 

So they built the dam, and we have a permanent flood. 

They said: ‘‘In exchange for that, we will give you some benefits.’’ 

And, I mean, we would be crazy to say: ‘‘Well, bring this flood. And 

by the way, it will be no cost. We will just lose half a million acres 

of land,’’ good bottom land, by the way. 
82

But the Federal Government said: ‘‘No, no. We will give you 

some benefits.’’ And we said: ‘‘All right. That is a fair trade,’’ except 

we got the flood but never quite got all the benefits. 

The NAWS program, the Northwest Area Water Supply, program 

is part of that. And for anybody to suggest to me that because 

there are fewer people in North Dakota that it somehow does not 

quite measure up, I mean, I think that is nuts. If that is what 

OMB is saying, I am sorry, tell them to go back and read a little 

history. We know we do not have as many people as New York City 

does, but we know what the promise was. And the people in North 

Dakota deserve good quality water. 

Here, incidently, is a sample of the water. And some of it looks 

like coffee. This is actually a little better looking. But this is the 

kind of water we are trying to replace with the NAWS program. 

And we do not want to wait another year, and we are not going 

to wait another year. And I think what OMB has done to us is a 

disaster. I mean, there is no excuse for what the Office of Management and Budget has done. We want this funded. We want it funded now. And we do not want to wait a year. And I do not want 

somebody telling me they are going to change the rules after we 

have already begun construction and after the promise has been 

made. 

So you and I will have other discussions about it. But you are 

probably just required to defend OMB and defend this budget. But 

I hope you know that what has happened in this budget, at least 

with respect to this project, is fundamentally wrong. And it is unfair to the people of North Dakota, who have been told this project 

is going to help them get a good supply of quality water. 

One additional point—do you want to respond to that? 

Secretary NORTON. I think we have had a number of conversations about this. So——

Senator DORGAN. And we will talk again in the other subcommittee. 

OVERHEAD

But one other point: I am very interested in pursuing with a 

range of agencies the issue of how much in each agency is represented by ‘‘overhead.’’ And that comes from a 1993 Presidential 

directive that asks all Federal agencies to determine what their 

overhead was. Almost no Federal agencies have complied with that. 

And I have been involved with some others in trying to make sure 

that we do force Federal agencies to comply. 

The reason is simple. If we have to tighten our belt, and I believe 

we do, I believe we are going to have to cut some Federal spending. 

If we do that, I would prefer that we begin to cut where businesses 

would cut. The first thing they would cut is some overhead, some 

travel, some administrative burden. But the fact is we cannot get 

at that in any of the Federal agencies because they do not determine what their overhead is. 

I would like, at least in this subcommittee, to ask you to work 

with us to try to, for this agency, comply with the Federal direction 

of 1993, which has not been complied with. And I am not blaming 

your agency, because no agency has complied with it. But I hope 

that we can work together to understand what is the overhead bur-
83

den, what is the administrative overhead burden, in these agencies, 

your agency and the various component parts of your agency. 

I think it is important because, Mr. Chairman, as we begin taking a look at funding levels, I would much prefer that we fund critically needed programs such as Indian colleges, rather than fund 

overhead that could well be cut in lean or in tough times. 

Secretary NORTON. Senator, if I could say, that is a very good 

question to ask. And it is something that has, frankly, been frustrating for us as well. When you come in and say, ‘‘Okay, here is 

the box of a program. Can’t we look within that box and figure out 

what is being spent that really does not need to be spent?’’ The way 

our accounting is currently operating throughout most of the Department, we really cannot see how much is actually spent on particular types of things. 

ACTIVITY BASED COSTING

We are now moving towards something called activity-based accounting or activity-based costing that will let us understand that. 

And it will require each of the bureaus to say not just ‘‘We budgeted for this program and we spent it all,’’ but ‘‘Here is what we 

spent on travel. Here is what we spent on printing. Here is what 

we spent on litigation,’’ all the different categories of expenditures. 

That is something that is currently in place for the Bureau of 

Land Management, and we are getting it into place for our other 

bureaus. I think that will be very helpful for all of us in trying to 

better manage. 

We have also just implemented an across-the-board cut in travel 

expenditures. So we are addressing some of those things. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Well, Madame Secretary, I am not 

perpetually crabby. It is just that I feel very strongly about tribal 

colleges, UTTC, about NAWS and some other issues. And I look 

forward to working with you on these issues. And can we work together to find out what we spend per horse and per mule, just for 

fun? 

Senator BURNS. You are not going to like that figure. 

Senator DORGAN. Actually more than just for fun. I think we 

ought to know that, just as policymakers. 

Secretary NORTON. We will provide that information for you. 

[The information follows:]

WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

For 2004, the BLM budget proposes $29.4 million to manage a wild horse and 

burro population estimated at 57,000. This would represent a cost-per-animal average of $516 per year. This total population estimate includes 38,000 on the open 

range, and 19,000 in what BLM refers to as the ‘‘National Pipeline’’, including 

10,155 in sanctuaries, 4,656 in maintenance facilities, and 4,303 in preparation facilities. The budget supports such activities as monitoring populations on the open 

range, gathers, holding costs, adoption activities, and compliance checks.

Senator BURNS. You are not going to like that horse figure. I will 

tell you that. We have been involved in that over in Montana. As 

you know, some of those wild horses and burros come from that 

part of the country. And I will tell you, it is something. I have some 

special projects in Montana. 
84

POWDER RIVER BASIN EIS

We have an 11:15 conference coming up, Madame Secretary. And 

I want to make that, I think all of us are involved in this budget 

thing. Though, there are a couple of questions I want to ask. We 

have been following the multi-year effort by the BLM on the environmental impact statement in the Powder River Basin. This has 

to do with coal bed methane. We want the EIS to be completed in 

a comprehensive and responsible way. Could you update us on the 

status of that EIS? And when can we expect any kind of a record 

of decision? 

Secretary NORTON. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that 

that is expected to be completed later this month. 

Senator BURNS. I assume you have all the resources that you 

need to complete this and to get it off the board? 

Secretary NORTON. We have requested increases in this 2004 

budget proposal for taking care of that, including inspection and 

monitoring. 

STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING

Senator BURNS. Let me also ask you about standardizing the 

Forest Service and Department of the Interior stewardship programs. Will you be using the same book in your procedures, and 

everything else in the stewardship contracting? Tell me how that 

is coming along. 

Secretary NORTON. We have had a great working relationship 

with the Forest Service throughout our fire program. It is my understanding that that is nearly completed to get the program that 

the Forest Service has already been operating tuned so that it can 

also accommodate our Department of the Interior needs. 

Senator BURNS. Will you be offering some stewardship contracts 

this year? 

Secretary NORTON. We certainly expect to be doing that very 

quickly. In fact, can I let Lynn Scarlett respond to that? She has 

been involved very directly in our fire management program. 

Senator BURNS. Please. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are working with the Forest Service and all our land management agencies to develop the 

operating guidelines and principles for the stewardship contract. 

We expect that to be completed this month. That will give us the 

basis from which to move forward on contracts right away. So yes, 

it is very much in our plans. 

Senator BURNS. In the areas where you have large concentrations of forest lands, rather than grazing lands, do you have any 

kind of assessment of what kind of fire season you are looking at? 

And conditions, how are you looking in that respect? Give Congress 

an idea of some of the challenges that we may have to meet later 

on this summer. 

Ms. SCARLETT. Well, I have copies of the recent drought maps. 

We get these every week. And I feel very optimistic, because the 

drought map in the last couple of weeks has improved dramatically 

over where it was in early March. Unfortunately, in preparation for 

this hearing, I looked at the drought map for this year in comparison with the drought map for last year. We are generally much 
85

worse across the western United States than we were last year. 

And especially in your area of Montana, we see a tremendous 

drought that is now a multi-year drought. So we are very concerned. 

Senator BURNS. We are in a different weather pattern up there. 

We are hoping that June will bring the normal—where we have a 

little more snowpack than we had a year ago, I can tell you that. 

Our rains and moisture have been a little bit better this spring. We 

just hold our breath and make sure our Junes turn out the way 

traditional Junes do, and we will be okay. 

ZORTMAN/LANDUSKY MINE RECLAMATION

In another area, I know you are aware of the Zortman/Landusky 

Mine reclamation in north-central Montana. The State of Montana 

holds approximately $60 million in bond for reclamation. But the 

BLM and State DEQ joint SEIS recommends reclamation exceeding this bond of approximately $33 million over that bond number. 

$11 million is still needed to supplement a trust, ensuring the 

water treatment facilities. It can be operated in perpetuity. 

It is my understanding that the Montana BLM office identified 

this project as a top priority and requested increased funding in its 

fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 budget to address these reclamation needs. Additionally, this committee directed the Bureau 

to consider the project in the formulation of the 2004 and 2005 

budget requests. Why did the Department not include this request 

in its final proposal in the 2004 budget? And can you identify funding for your current budget request to support these activities? In 

other words, are you going to put some money into this? 

Secretary NORTON. Let me defer to John Trezise. But I think we 

will have to get the detailed answer for you in writing. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, before he answers, I have to 

run off to the Energy Committee markup. 

Senator BURNS. Okay. 

Senator DORGAN. So let me thank the Secretary and the Secretary’s staff for being here. 

Secretary NORTON. Thank you. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. Appreciate it. You can vote for me. 

Senator DORGAN. I will do that. Careful what you ask for. 

Senator BURNS. All right. 

Mr. TREZISE. Senator Burns, this is a very difficult problem and 

obviously one where a great deal of work is needed to restore the 

Zortman/Landusky site and address the water quality problems associated with the site. Work is currently ongoing, of course, using 

the bond that was posted by the mining company. Unfortunately, 

the bond is not adequate to cover all costs, especially the long-term 

costs. The water monitoring costs we will face for many decades. 

As you say, the Montana office did recommend significant funding in the 2003 and 2004 budgets for this project. We at the Department and the Bureau headquarters are working with the Montana State office to look at all the options about how we can address this issue, both in the short term and, more importantly, in 

the long term, which is where the bond money is really going to 

be a problem. I think it would be useful for the Bureau to come 
86

up and talk to you later in the spring about the progress they have 

made in looking at options. 

Senator BURNS. Well, we look forward to that visit. Also, I was 

talking to the tribal leaders at Fort Belknap, and they want to 

have a meeting with you. They have not been able to secure one, 

Madame Secretary. I would suggest you sit down with the tribal 

leaders at Fort Belknap, go through some of the concerns they 

have. Because they are in that drainage area off of Zortman, not 

only on water, but also on land issues. I would like for you to meet 

with them, if you possibly could. 

Secretary NORTON. I will try to make sure that somebody who is 

familiar with the issues and can actually perhaps address them 

better than I can is able to meet with them. 

Senator BURNS. I would suggest you sit in on the meeting, but 

take your experts with you. That is the way we do things, just a 

little hint. 

Okay. We have more questions for you, and I am going to put 

those in letter form. We would like to have a response. 

We are looking at the overall funding. And, of course, we do not 

know what is going to finally come out of the budget. But we hope 

to have a budget. That is what that conference is about at 11:15 

today. We are going to talk about Going to the Sun Road in Glacier 

Park, and also some Forest Service, and stuff with fuel loads on 

our forest floors. 

There is a reauthorization of the SMCRA activities, Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act. And, of course, surface mining 

and State regulatory grants. We will put these in question form. 

We will need your response before we finally go to final markup on 

the Interior side of this bill. 

Secretary NORTON. We will be happy to provide you that information. 

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator BURNS. Okay. We appreciate you coming this morning. 

And we will leave the record open for questions, from other committee members. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

SMCRA REAUTHORIZATION

Question. The authority of OSM to collect the abandoned mine reclamation fee established under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) expires 

on September 30, 2004. Many states out West have paid a great deal in these fees 

which go into the Abandoned Mine Reclamation fund abut have not received back 

anywhere near what we put in. For example, Montana has paid in over $266 million 

but has only gotten back about $100 million. 

What is the Administration’s position with respect to extending the authority to 

collect this fee? 

Answer. The Administration is seeking to extend fee collections beyond September 

30, 2004. We think that additional funds are necessary to address the many remaining health and safety problems threatening our citizens who live and recreate in 

coal country. OSM hopes to craft a proposal that will concentrate funding on the 

highest priority abandoned mine land problems affecting the largest number of people. We have been working with our stakeholders (the States and Indian tribes, as 
87

well as environmental groups, industry and members of Congress) to develop an extension proposal. 

Question. If you propose to extend SMCRA, does the Administration support keeping the fee the same or will you propose increasing it? 

Answer. The President’s Budget assumed the extension of the fee at its current 

rate. However, we continue to refine the proposal. 

Question. Will there be anything in the proposal to deal with states that have 

paid in a great deal but have not gotten much back? 

Answer. The Administration is reviewing several options for paying out AML 

funds to the States. States which have certified the completion of coal mine land 

reclamation, like Montana, are of particular concern to us. Our records show that 

as of September 30, 2002, over $275 million in AML fees has been collected from 

mining operators for coal mined in Montana. Under SMCRA, 50 percent of those 

collections, or over $137 million, are State Share funds targeted for projects in Montana, of which $95 million has been distributed to the State of Montana for grants. 

The remaining State share balance of $42.5 million is a concern, and we hope to 

find ways to provide the payment of such funds to Montana and to the other certified States. 

Question. When will the Administration send its proposal to Congress? 

Answer. We’re working diligently to develop recommendations for Congress. We 

hope to have something ready by mid-summer. 

STATE REGULATORY GRANTS

Question. As you know, the Office of Surface Mining provides grants to states on 

a 50/50 cost share basis to regulate mining in their states. This is a good deal for 

the Federal government, since if the states did not regulate surface mining the Federal government would be required to do it and pay 100 percent of these costs. I 

see that the budget request for this activity is $57.6 million but that the states 

asked for $64.4 million. 

If we don’t fund the full amount asked for by the states will it lead to any serious 

problems such as legal challenges to state programs based on their inability to carry 

out their regulatory requirements? 

Answer. The amount requested in the President’s Budget is a slight increase from 

fiscal year 2003, and OSM believes that the requested total will be sufficient to assist the States/Tribes. OSM is concerned about the States and Tribes having adequate funding to meet their requirements and will work with each individual State 

and Tribe to ensure that their program needs are met. OSM will continue to closely 

monitor the State programs, and State and Tribal funding requests and expenditures, to identify and resolve any concerns. 

Question. Do you expect that any states will turn the regulatory program back 

over to the Federal government due to lack of funding? 

Answer. OSM is not currently aware of any specific State or Tribe seriously considering giving up regulatory primacy due to lack of funding. We agree that it is 

possible that if funding were inadequate, States might pursue this option. As previously mentioned, OSM will continue to work with each State and Tribe to ensure 

that their regulatory program needs are met. 

Following the release of the NRC report, the agencies agreed to form a standing 

technical team to address issues of mutual concern, particularly those related to coal 

slurry impoundments. The group will focus on NRC report recommendations related 

to mapping, engineering and design standards, and monitoring requirements. Additionally, the agencies have discussed the other recommendations of the NRC committee and have identified priorities for future work. The standing joint OSM-MSHA 

technical committee will begin addressing particular actions needed to implement 

the NRC recommendations at its July 2002 meeting. As these efforts are ongoing, 

neither OSM nor MSHA have yet developed any regulatory proposals or guidelines 

based on the NRC report. However, as the joint team’s work progresses, one or both 

of the agencies may develop additional requirements for impoundments. 

At the same time, OSM is committed to working with the states and others on 

these issues as well. OSM and MSHA plan to host a meeting between representatives of the two agencies and the states to discuss their role in developing standards 

and approaches to implement any new requirements. 

Not only is OSM working with MSHA, the states and other federal entities, OSM 

is working on its own to address concerns surrounding the safety of coal waste impoundments. After the Martin County Coal Corporation impoundment failure, OSM 

developed and implemented a regional plan designed to minimize the potential for 

future impoundment breakthroughs into underground mines by: 
88

—evaluating the factors contributing to the Martin County impoundment breakthrough, 

—developing criteria for evaluating existing high-risk impoundments near underground mines, 

—evaluating state program requirements and program implementation with regard to impoundments, and 

—ensuring effective state evaluation of existing high-risk impoundments through 

oversight and technical assistance. 

As part of its oversight responsibilities, OSM has made impoundments a priority 

by initiating ongoing evaluations of state programs to ensure that they are adequate 

and that they are effectively implemented. A part of this effort includes a determination of whether the states are effectively evaluating existing high-risk impoundments, identifying problems, and adequately addressing those problems. 

In providing technical assistance on this issue, OSM has made resources available 

to the states to assist them in their identifying and evaluating existing impoundments that are of high concern. In addition, using its impoundment engineering expertise, and with input from states and MSHA, OSM has developed a technical 

guidance document with established criteria that can be used in re-evaluating existing high-risk impoundments over or adjacent to underground mines. OSMS provided 

this document to the states in July 2001. 

Finally, OSM has worked to facilitate communication between State and Federal 

agencies involved in regulating coal slurry impoundments and related facilities. 

Through enhanced communication, coordination and cooperation, OSM believes that 

many of the issues related to coal waste impoundments can be resolved. 

MMS ROYALTY-IN-KIND

Question. I see that MMS has greatly expanded its use of the Royalty-In-Kind authority. Currently, over 80 percent of the oil production from the Gulf of Mexico is 

taken ‘‘in kind’’ in order to fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). 

How long will it take for MMS to fill up the SPR? 

Answer. The SPR Fill Initiative is a joint project of the Department of Energy 

(DOE) and the Department of the Interior (DOI) to fill the remaining capacity of 

the SPR utilizing RIK oil from Federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico. For the majority 

of RIK oil committed to the SPR Initiative, the DOI is responsible for supply side 

logistics of taking the oil RIK at offshore leases and accomplishing delivery of the 

oil to the account of the DOE at onshore market centers. The DOE is responsible 

for taking onshore custody of the RIK oil and, through exchange contracts, accomplishing the actual delivery and physical fill at the SPR sites. Approximately 10 percent of RIK production is directly transported from offshore leases to the DOE at 

an SPR site. 

At current RIK delivery rates, the MMS expects to complete the RIK oil supply 

side deliveries to the DOE’s account by the end of fiscal year 2005. However, the 

completion of supply side deliveries could be delayed somewhat due to interruptions 

of production caused by hurricanes and pipeline operation issues or by declines in 

physical production at the leases. 

Question. After SPR is filled, does the agency plan to continue to take the bulk 

of its Gulf of Mexico royalty production ‘‘in kind’’ rather than ‘‘in value?’’

Answer. The MMS has adopted an asset management strategy in administering 

mineral revenues. A key aspect of this strategy is the strategic utilization of two 

asset management options—royalty-in-value or RIK—for the purpose of increasing 

benefits to the Government. One of the important determinants in making the decision on which option to utilize is the opportunity to increase revenues to the Treasury. Because the oil markets play an important role in the economics of the decision 

making process, it is difficult to forecast how much of the Gulf of Mexico oil royalties will be taken in kind in fiscal year 2006. However, the MMS will be well positioned to continue to have a significant RIK program in the Gulf of Mexico that includes small refiners and competitive sales. 

Question. Since taking the royalty ‘‘in kind’’ eliminates, for the most part, questions over how to value the oil, does the agency believe that expanding the RIK program makes sense over the long term? 

Answer. The results of the current RIK program to fill SPR have been positive 

from the standpoint of taking oil in kind. However, we have not traded this oil for 

value on the open market. Therefore, we don’t know if we can increase revenues to 

the Treasury. We continue to evaluate the RIK efforts; if the results continue to be 

positive, we believe there is a good future for the RIK program. 
89

OIA/STATUS OF COMPACT NEGOTIATIONS

Question. The current Compact of Free Association between the United States and 

the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia expires at the end of 

this fiscal year. Negotiations have been going on for some time regarding a new 

Compact between the parties. Once these negotiations are concluded Congress will 

need to pass legislation to put the new Compact into effect. I am concerned that 

time is running out to get this legislation through the Congress by the end of the 

fiscal year. 

When will parties reach agreement on a legislative package that will be sent to 

the Congress? 

Answer. The State Department has generally reached agreement with the freely 

associated states and, in fact, a signing ceremony was concluded with the Republic 

of the Marshall Islands. The package has been transmitted to Congress. 

Question. Does the Administration have a plan if there is further delay and the 

new Compact can’t be enacted by Congress before the end of the fiscal year? 

Answer. While it is not considered a good alternative, the Administration is prepared to deal with such an eventuality. There is sufficient budget authority in the 

President’s fiscal year 2004 proposal to work with the Congress on various options. 

In developing these options, it is extremely important to the Administration that the 

essence of the new agreement, including greater accountability and more targeted 

use of U.S. assistance, be incorporated. It is also important to the Administration 

that options deal with the problem of impacts to U.S. insular areas and, finally, that 

any considered options not be viewed as a disincentive to the quickest possible implementation of the new agreements. 

FWS/CONSULTATION ON FUELS REDUCTION PROJECTS

Question. A critical part of the National Fire Plan is the effort to reduce hazardous fuels on our forests and rangelands. Many of these projects require consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act before 

they can be implemented. In order to ensure adequate resources to accomplish this 

work, the Committee gave the Forest Service and other Interior Department agencies the ability to transfer fire funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service for consultations on these projects. 

How is this effort proceeding? 

Answer. The Service developed a cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Land 

Management shortly after passage of the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill to provide reimbursement for any consultation support provided to DOI bureaus in support of the National Fire Plan. A similar agreement was executed with the Forest 

Service shortly after passage of Public Law 107–13. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service recruited approximately 65 temporary/term employees 

to support an anticipated consultation workload increase associated with the National Fire Plan. The highest priority work for these new employees is to provide 

ESA consultation support to the Forest Service and DOI fire management agencies. 

Question. Has the Fish and Wildlife Service put in place adequate resources to 

ensure that fuels reduction projects receive their consultations in a timely manner? 

Answer. Yes. The biologists hired in fiscal year 2001 and 2002 to provide consultation services to the fire management agencies have been sufficient to respond to the 

consultation workload generated by projects supporting the National Fire Plan. We 

are not aware of any significant delays to National Fire Plan projects that were 

caused by section 7 consultations; however, some non-National Fire Plan projects 

may have been delayed as a result of the Service diverting consultation resources 

to National Fire Plan projects. On June 5, 2003, we proposed Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Regulations to help streamline the National Fire Plan consultation process and increase the Service’s capability to help 

focus on these non-National Fire Plan actions (68 Federal Register 33805). 

Question. How much money has been transferred to the agency for this work? 

Answer. To date, the USFS has made $7,500,000 available to the Service, and the 

BLM, $8,000,000. 

GOING-TO-THE-SUN ROAD

Question. The fiscal year 2003 bill included additional funds for staff and equipment at Glacier National Park. These funds will hopefully enable the Park to open 

the Going-to-the-Sun Road as quickly and as safely as possible each spring. Can you 

tell me whether these additional resources will be in place in time to have an impact 

on this year’s road opening? Are funds included in the fiscal year 2004 budget to 

continue these enhanced operations next year? 
90

Answer. Glacier National Park staff has already begun seven-day-a-week operations on the west side of the Going-to-the-Sun Road. East side seven-day-a-week 

operations began May 10, 2003. In terms of equipment, Glacier NP has already contracted for an excavator to be used for snow removal this year. In addition, the park 

is leasing two additional pieces of snow removal equipment for this season. As part 

of the initiative to assure employee and visitor safety, the park will be procuring 

a GIS location system with funds received from Congress this fiscal year. Finally, 

this effort at Glacier NP is part of an overall, ongoing strategy to better manage 

the opening of the Going-to-the-Sun Road and the above-stated efforts will continue 

into fiscal year 2004 and beyond. 

Prior to the enactment of the fiscal year 2003 bill, the fiscal year 2004 request identified a $500,000 operating increase for the Spring opening of Going-to-the-Sun 

Road. This recurring funding was included within the additional park funding provided by Congress for fiscal year 2003 and continues in fiscal year 2004 and beyond. 

Question. I know the Administration’s budget request projects an increase for the park roads program to $300 million in fiscal year 2004 as part of the reauthorization of TEA–21. Is it your understanding that this amount will be sufficient to complete the Going-to-the-Sun Road rehabilitation in a timely manner? 

Answer. The President’s Budget for fiscal year 2004 articulated a Park Roads and Parkways Program (PRPP) funding level for National Park Service (NPS) of $300 

million in fiscal year 2004, $310 million in fiscal year 2005, and $320 million annually in fiscal year 2006–2009. This would nearly double current funding levels of 

$165 million annually. Part of President Bush’s ‘‘Park Legacy Project’’ is to address 

the NPS backlog of maintenance needs across the Service. A significant portion of 

the backlog is in roads. 

The NPS seeks to continue the progress made under the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) to restore, build, and reshape its transportation 

system, by giving priority and focus to the following categories: —Category I ($270–$310 million/annually).—Restores the condition of the existing roads to ‘‘good,’’ system wide. Supports President Bush’s commitment to address the NPS deferred maintenance backlog. Deploys sound asset management 

strategies to optimize life cycle cost. —Category II ($3–$10 million/annually).—Builds the next logical phase of the 

Congressionally mandated parkways. Continues construction of the Foothills 

Parkway ‘‘missing link’’ and begins the construction of multi-use trails around 

three urban areas along the Natchez Trace Parkway. —Category III ($20 million/annually).—Continues to plan and build alternative 

transportation systems. Deploys integrated visitor transportation systems using 

a combination of technologies, facilities, and community transport management 

strategies. 

Historically, these categories are administrative in nature only and are not legislatively directed to allow maximum flexibility to move dollars across categories to 

facilitate high annual obligation rates and to meet emergency and/or critical Service-wide priorities. 

Rebuilding the Going-to-the-Sun Highway is a complex multi-million and multi 

year-construction event with an identified need of some $150–$180 million. Much 

of this need goes beyond bridge and pavement condition. Latest studies reflect an 

ambitious schedule that would take approximately $18–$25 million annually over 

some eight years. 

Category I funds are distributed by formula based on miles, condition, average 

daily traffic and traffic accidents. The logic is to deploy sound asset management 

strategies to spend the dollars at the right time and at the right place to get the 

best return on available funds. The Service has many parks with large road maintenance needs. The Administration’s proposed $270–$310 million annually means the 

Intermountain Region will receive some $60–$70 million annually, an increase of 

$30 to $35 million over the current level. Accordingly, the NPS is challenged with 

making headway with such large park needs as the Going-to-the-Sun Highway rehabilitation while balancing the mix of projects across the Service and Intermountain 

Region so as to not compromise President Bush’s commitment to address the deferred maintenance backlog and ensure the system is in ‘‘good’’ condition system 

wide. 

The President’s Budget would provide significant funding for the Going-to-the-Sun 

Road at a rate about as fast as could be efficiently obligated. Even at this accelerated rate, however, such an extensive project would be in all probability pushed past 

the end of the next Highway Trust Fund Reauthorization (fiscal year 2009). 

Question. Will the Administration’s legislative proposal for TEA–21 reauthorization include language that specifically addresses the needs of large projects like the 

Going-to-the-Sun Road? 
91

Answer. Currently, the Administration’s legislative proposal for Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) reauthorization has not been completed 

and formally submitted to Congress. We understand the package will be forwarded 

in the middle of May 2003. 

The Administration’s legislative proposal does not include specific language for 

large projects. The funding for the Park Roads and Parkways Program (PRPP) has 

historically not been legislatively identified for a specific area or category to allow 

flexibility across categories to facilitate high annual obligation rates and meet emergency and/or critical Service-wide priorities. The PRPP has been guided by program 

goals such as keeping the system from further deteriorating, completing four of the 

six Congressionally mandated parkways and completing pilot parks to explore and 

implement alternative transportation systems. The NPS has proposed to continue 

to focus on these three areas with the dollars made available. Given the large increases proposed, the PRPP will be able to address the needs of large projects, like 

the Going-to-the-Sun Road, without requiring specific language. 

FORT PECK RESERVATION/DRY PRAIRIE

Question. It is my understanding that the Office of Management and Budget has 

completed its review of the engineering report for the Ft. Peck/Dry Prairie water 

project in Montana. 

How soon will the engineering report be transmitted to Congress? 

Answer. The Final Engineering Report was transmitted to Congress in a letter 

signed by the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science on May 6, 2003. 

Question. Will the Department be in a position to obligate funds this year? If not, 

why not? 

Answer. The likelihood is high that funds can be obligated this fiscal year. Contracts have been negotiated for obligation of funds and work plans are being developed by Fort Peck Tribe and by Dry Prairie. Funds may then be obligated for nonconstruction activities, a process that may take about a month to complete. Funds 

for construction activities may be obligated in August/September of 2003, which is 

after the Final Engineering report sits for a mandatory 90 days from the time it 

was transmittal to the Congress (May 6, 2003). 

Question. Can you tell me why no funds were requested for this project in the fiscal year 2004 budget request? 

Answer. It has been Reclamation’s position, as articulated by the Commissioner 

of Reclamation on this and other rural water projects, that, given limited funding, 

Reclamation does not support starting construction of new projects to the detriment 

of projects already under construction. 

PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA

Question. Pursuant to the President’s Management Agenda, the Department has 

been studying whether or not it makes sense to outsource certain Federal jobs. 

Can you tell us where you are in the process? 

Answer. DOI has completed review/study of 1,079 FTE as of mid-April 2003. We 

are in the process of conducting seven full A–76 competitive sourcing cost comparisons. DOI is on track to complete competitive sourcing studies on 15 percent (3,041) 

of the FTE listed in their fiscal year 2000 FAIR Act Inventory by the end of 2003. 

Question. How many positions has the Department decided to study? 

Answer. DOI has committed to a cumulative ‘‘soft target’’ of 25 percent (5,068) by 

the end of fiscal year 2004. 

Question. When will these studies be completed, and when will decisions be made 

about whether to outsource? 

Answer. The study results of the remaining 1962 for fiscal year 2003 will be completed by December 2003. The decision to remain in-house or contract with a private 

sector source will also be made around December 2003. The studies for fiscal year 

2004 (an additional 2,027 for a total of 5,068 FTE) will begin October 2003 and the 

results will be announced in first quarter fiscal year 2005 (October/November 2004). 

Question. What has been the cost of the studies throughout the Department? 

Answer. As of June, 2003, the Department’s estimate on the cost of studies and 

other related costs for fiscal year 2003 was $3.3 million. This estimate includes the 

following: 

BLM—$886,000 in study costs as of June 2003 

OSM—zero as all studies were performed in house 

NPS—$1.6 million anticipated costs for 2003 as reflected in a July 11, 2003 reprogramming 

BIA—$400,000 anticipated costs for 2003 (projected in June 2003) 

GS—$160,000 in study costs as of June 2003 
92

MMS—$74,000 in study costs as of June 2003 

FWS—$200,000 anticipated costs for 2003 (projected in June 2003) 

For internal purposes these amounts were reported to appropriations staff on 

June 6, 2003. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT—CBM EIS FOR MONTANA

Question. I have been following the BLM’s multi-year effort in the preparation of 

the Environmental Impact Statement for the Powder River Region of Montana with 

a great deal of anticipation and interest. We have worked with the Department to 

secure additional funding above past budget request figures to ensure that adequate 

environmental studies would be completed and that the EIS would be done in as 

responsible a manner as possible. 

Could you update us on the status of the EIS, and when can we expect a record 

of decision? 

Answer. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Statewide Oil and Gas EIS 

and Proposed Amendment to the Powder River and Billings Resource Management 

Plans was signed on April 30, 2003. 

Prior to signing the ROD, the Director of BLM resolved all protests, including 21 

protest letters that addressed issues on the Montana side, 76 protest letters that 

addressed issues on the Wyoming side, and 98 letters that addressed issues in both 

states. 

In order to resolve the protests, the BLM needed to determine the validity of each 

protest filed, prepare a written decision, and set forth the reasons for the decision. 

The decisions were sent to the protesting parties by certified mail in April 2003. 

In addition, 400 faxes and 18,000 emails were received during the protest period. 

Since letters of protest were required to be sent to the Bureau Director, faxes and 

emails were not valid protests and did not require individual responses. 

Question. I assume we have completed the need for resource planning dollars for 

this specific EIS. Does the current fiscal year 2004 budget submission include adequate funding in the oil and gas base program to support development in the Powder River Region of Montana in fiscal year 2004? 

Answer. The proposed funding for fiscal year 2004 will be adequate based on the 

number of Applications for Permit to Drill (APD) we have received so far in 2003 

and expect to receive by the end of the fiscal year. The 2004 budget request also 

factored in the level of demand for 2004 that was projected at the time the budget 

was formulated. If actual demand in 2004 deviates from this projection, BLM will 

consider any necessary budgetary adjustments to ensure appropriate support for development of Coalbed Natural Gas in the Powder River Basin of Montana. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT—MONTANA GAS PERMITTING

Question. Madam Secretary, in the face of natural gas prices skyrocketing once 

again to record levels, and questionable domestic energy security, I applaud your 

leadership to increase responsible and reasonable domestic production. 

It is my understanding that the funding increases for energy permitting that your 

Department has proposed—and this Committee has supplemented—are resulting in 

real results on the ground. I am told the Department is planning on announcing 

a substantial number of new gas leases being permitted in eastern Montana as 

early as this week. 

Could you please update us on the status of this increased permitting activity and 

give us a sense of whether other regions of the country are seeing similar results? 

Answer. In Montana, BLM expects to process 24 percent more APDs than in 2002. 

BLM has already processed 68 percent of the 279 APDs expected in 2003. The Miles 

City field office has in the last month received 99 APDs for coalbed natural gas. 

The following table shows the APDs processed in fiscal year 2002 and so far in 

fiscal year 2003 relative to the fiscal year 2003 goal. It also gives an estimate of 

the number of APDs to be processed in fiscal year 2004 in Montana and other states 

with APD activity. This table reflects total oil and gas APDs, not just those associated with Coalbed Natural Gas.

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL 

Fiscal years 

2002

actual 

2003 actual 

(as of

6/30/03) 

2003

planned 

2004

estimated 

California ...................................................................................... 149 66 245 260 
93

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS TO DRILL—Continued

Fiscal years 

2002

actual 

2003 actual (as of

6/30/03) 

2003

planned 

2004

estimated 

Colorado ........................................................................................ 264 179 240 275 

Montana ........................................................................................ 225 189 279 920 

New Mexico ................................................................................... 1,134 912 1,185 1,335 

Utah .............................................................................................. 512 294 450 538 

Wyoming ........................................................................................ 1,787 1,043 2,750 3,400 

Other states .................................................................................. 564 46 351 272

Total ................................................................................ 4,635 2,729 5,500 7,000 

Question. I am told that the Bureau of Land Management is interested in addressing the concern that some offices are seemingly much more inefficient than 

other offices in addressing the backlog of energy applications. 

Can you speak to the Bureau’s work to explore methods to increase efficiency and 

predictability in the permitting process? 

Answer. BLM holds its field managers accountable for annual workload targets 

and timeliness of responses to authorization requests from industry. BLM is using 

cost management data along with the 2002 customer survey results to pinpoint 

where APD processing delays are occurring and to identify how to prevent any further delays. In addition, the BLM is taking several steps which will improve the 

APD processing time frames. On April 14, 2003 the BLM Washington Office issued 

5 Instruction Memorandums (IMs) on APD process improvement. These IMs cover 

Conditions of Approval, Cultural Resources, revision of Onshore Oil and Gas Order 

No.1 which specify minimum standards of performance for oil and gas operators, 

Comprehensive Strategies, and revision of the Oil and Gas ‘‘Gold Book’’, a reference 

book used by oil and gas operators to comply with surface use standards for oil and 

gas operations. 

The IM on Conditions of Approval (IM 2003–146) asked the Field Offices to supply 

the Washington Office with copies of conditions of approval currently being used. 

The Washington Office will then develop standard conditions of approval and guidance on how to develop reasonable and enforceable conditions of approval. This will 

help oil and gas operators by eliminating inconsistencies across the Bureau. 

The IM on Cultural Resources (IM 2003–147) identifies some ‘‘best practices’’ 

being used in some Field Offices concerning Cultural Resources. All Field Offices are 

instructed to use these ‘‘best practices’’ to help streamline the APD processing time 

frames. 

In July 2003, over 50 percent of pending permit applications were incomplete. 

BLM is revising Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (IM 2003–151) and the Oil and 

Gas ‘‘Gold Book’’ (IM 2003–153), two references used by oil and gas operators to 

comply with standards concerning surface use for oil and gas operations. Clarifying 

these two references will make it easier for oil and gas applicants to submit a complete application, thus reducing APD delays. 

The IM on Comprehensive Strategies (IM 2003–152) outlines some strategies 

Field Offices can employ to streamline the APD processing time. This IM publicizes 

to all BLM Field Offices some ‘‘best practices’’ for APD processing being used by 

other BLM Field Offices. 

PILT—PROPOSED MOVEMENT FROM BLM TO THE DEPARTMENT LEVEL

Question. Madam Secretary, this year’s request includes a proposal to move funding for PILT out of the BLM account and shift the program to the Department level. 

Setting aside the request’s decrease of $18.5 million from the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, which concerns me greatly, could you explain the Department’s proposal 

to shift this program to the Department level? 

Answer. PILT payments are principally based on public lands in local jurisdictions 

that are Federally-administered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park 

Service, U.S. Forest Service, and other Federal agencies, in addition to the BLM. 

Funding for PILT is not singularly attributed to one Department agency. The program is being consolidated at the Department level in recognition of the fact that 

PILT payments are made not only for BLM lands, but also for the lands of these 

other Federal agencies, and to ensure that appropriate emphasis can be directed to 

this program. 
94

Question. The Interior Appropriations Act has historically capped the administrative costs for the PILT program at $400,000? Will the Department be able to live 

within this cap, or hopefully reduce the administrative costs further? 

Answer. Yes, the Department will be able to continue administration of the PILT 

program at the $400,000 level. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT—ENERGY AND MINERALS

Question. Madam Secretary, I notice your budget for the BLM essentially asks for 

level funding for Energy and Minerals production, rather than including a substantial increase, as has been the case in the past two requests. 

I whole-heartedly applaud your efforts to increase domestic production, but I am 

curious if the lack of increase in this year’s request for Energy and Minerals was 

based upon budget limitations or the reality that we are doing everything we can 

to address the current permitting backlogs and related activity. 

Answer. Funding increases in the last two years have brought BLM’s Energy and 

Minerals program up to $106 million in 2003, an increase of 34 percent over the 

2001 level of $79 million. These increases—which have been generally in line with 

the Administration’s requests and reflect the high priority the Administration places 

on energy development—have been built into the ‘‘base’’ for the fiscal year 2004 request. The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the BLM’s Energy and Minerals Management program is adequate to reduce the current APD backlog, based on the estimated number of APDs that the Bureau expects to receive during 2003 and 2004. 

The BLM has had indications that some operators are planning to submit large 

numbers of APDs in the future, especially in the Powder River Basin and in other 

areas with potential coalbed natural gas development. However, based on past experience, the BLM cannot count on this increase in activity. It is not uncommon for 

an operator to tell the Bureau that plans for the following year include drilling large 

numbers of wells, only to have the operator change his/her priorities the following 

year, and not drill any of the wells that were planned. The BLM has planned for 

a 27 percent increase in activity over 2003. An increase greater than 27 percent 

would likely result in a growing APD backlog, while an increase of less than 27 percent would allow BLM to further reduce the existing backlog beyond what has been 

anticipated in 2004. Also, to the extent that some of BLM’s efforts to improve efficiencies are successful, BLM could see additional reductions in the APD backlog. 

Question. Could you detail some of the initiatives that the BLM will be undertaking in fiscal year 2004 that are designed to increase domestic energy production 

while also diversifying our energy portfolio? 

Answer. The National Energy Policy specifically directs BLM to address several 

key issues that are vital to the current and future status of the Nation’s energy program. In response, the BLM has developed a plan that will continue to be implemented in 2004. In Alaska, BLM will conduct a second biennial lease for oil and 

gas in the northeast sector of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR–A). 

BLM is also pursuing the expansion of the area offered for lease to include the 

northwest and southern section of NPR–A. BLM plans to increase support for coalbed natural gas development in areas beyond the Powder River Basin and to continue support for active coal leases to provide these fuels that are so vital for power 

generation. 

In order to respond to the demand for diverse energy sources, the BLM plans to 

process and approve twice the number of geothermal permits to drill in 2004 that 

are processed in 2003. Also, the BLM will concentrate on processing geothermal applications for development on U.S. Forest Service public lands in California, Oregon, 

and Washington, and clear new areas managed by the Bureau for geothermal leasing in Utah, New Mexico, Idaho, and Arizona. BLM’s efforts are expected to result 

in a 15 percent increase in geothermal power plants. 

In Idaho, Utah, and Nevada, BLM plans to update land use plans and perform 

environmental studies needed to respond to applications for wind energy development. BLM staff will also be responding to demand for access across BLM lands for 

transmission lines and pipelines related to renewable and non-renewable energy development. BLM recognizes that timely issuance of these right-of-ways is important 

to the economic viability of these projects. 

BLM is also incorporating in Resource Management Plans the information contained in a new report titled, ‘‘Opportunities for Near-Term Geothermal Development on Public Lands in the Western United States’’. This report (released in April 

2003) identifies 35 ‘‘top pick’’ sites in six western states for near-term development 

of geothermal energy for power generation. Of the 35 sites, ten are in Nevada, nine 

are in California, seven are in Oregon, and three each are located in New Mexico, 
95

Utah, and Washington. The report was prepared for the BLM and the Department 

of Energy by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Question. In my experience, these initiatives are largely supported by State and 

local governments. In your opinion, is the Department working well with local government entities and are they generally supportive of these efforts? 

Answer. BLM field offices work closely in the development of land use plans, 

which provide the framework for managing the exploration and development of energy. In addition, State governments are often cooperating agencies in the preparation of major environmental impact statements (EIS). In the case of the coalbed natural gas development EISs, both Montana and Wyoming State agencies assisted in 

the preparation or review of these important environmental documents. State agencies with permitting authority, such as Montana’s Board of Oil and Gas Conservation (MBOGC) and Montana’s Department of Environmental Quality, are closely involved in establishing operating requirements and mitigation measures to minimize 

or eliminate hazards associated with coalbed natural gas development. BLM and 

MBOGC review and approve Water Management Plans for each project in order to 

support the goal of developing coalbed natural gas in an environmentally sound 

manner. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT—FIRE FUNDING

Question. Your budget request includes a $36 million increase for fire suppression 

activities. I support your desire to bolster this account to avoid the inefficient process of routinely borrowing against other Department accounts to offset suppression 

costs. 

Can you explain the projections the Department used to support this increase? 

Answer. The budget request for suppression operations assumes that 2004 will be 

an average year for wildland fire activity. The request is based on the most recent 

10-year average cost for fire suppression operations, as adjusted for inflation. For 

the 2004 request, the 10-year period covers the years 1993 through 2002. The actual 

cost for fire suppression for each year was converted into 2002-comparable dollars, 

using the approved Gross Domestic Product non-Defense deflators as the basis for 

the adjustments. The inflation-adjusted costs were added together, and the sum was 

divided by ten to calculate the annual average of $195.3 million. 

Question. We have had numerous discussions within this Subcommittee, and in 

both the Energy and Natural Resources and Budget Committees, to address the 

problem of borrowing against other accounts to fight fires. This practice functionally 

crippled the U.S. Forest Service last year and caused some problems for Interior as 

well. 

Could you explain how the Department was impacted, and what steps have been 

taken to minimize the disruption to core programs? 

Answer. The impact of borrowing funds from other accounts to pay for wildland 

firefighting has not disrupted Interior operating programs. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to draw on construction and land acquisition accounts with significant unobligated balances. Borrowing from these accounts has enabled Interior 

to avoid borrowing from operating accounts that could impede or disrupt on-theground operational activities such as resource protection, park and refuge operations, and BIA school operations. 

The Departments of the Interior and Agriculture are in the process of developing 

a large fire cost reduction action plan. The plan will respond to Congressional direction included with the 2003 appropriation and will build upon previous reports by 

the National Academy of Public Administration and the National Association of 

State Foresters. It will address the roles of agency line officers and incident commanders as well as changes in wildfire situation analyses, financial management, 

and operational actions. We expect that the recommendations in the draft plan will 

result in operational savings that will result in savings to the taxpayer and a reduced need to rely on transfers from other accounts for emergency funding. 

TRUST REFORM REORGANIZATION

Question. Last year the Department proposed an organizational restructuring to 

handle the Department’s Indian Trust responsibilities. This proposal met with concern by some in the tribal community and a robust consultation process was the result. 

Could you update the subcommittee on your current actions to organize the Department’s trust reform responsibilities and give us a roadmap of what you feel are 

the next logical steps to be pursued by the Department? 

Answer. The new organizational structure for the BIA and OST provides a single 

executive sponsor for trust reform; enhance beneficiary services; ensure account-
96

ability; and emphasize Economic Development, Self-Governance and Self-Determination activities. 

Both BIA and OST are working aggressively to implement the reorganization. The 

Departmental Manual to formalize the reorganization was issued on April 21, 2003. 

OST and BIA are determining personnel selections for key management positions. 

OST has initiated recruitment of Trust Officers to be placed in, or in close proximity 

to, the BIA agencies with the highest level of trust activities and recurring trust 

income. BIA and OST have established a joint implementation coordination team 

that meets regularly to discuss issues related to implementing the reorganization 

as efficiently and effectively as possible. 

The reorganization focuses on the BIA and OST fiduciary responsibilities to tribal 

and individual Indian beneficiaries. The BIA will retain its responsibilities relating 

to land and natural resource management because of its demonstrated expertise in 

this area of the trust. OST will retain its financial trust asset management and 

statutory oversight duties, and expand its role to provide beneficiary representation 

in all aspects of fiduciary operations and oversight. OST’s Trust Officers and Regional Trust Administrators will provide local presence to support beneficiary services and ensure the proper management of fiduciary trust assets. 

The reorganization of trust functions in the BIA and OST was developed after detailed analysis of the prior organization and a yearlong consultation process with 

tribal leaders. This was, perhaps, the most extensive consultation effort ever undertaken by the senior management level at the Department on any issue relating to 

Indian Country. Over 45 meetings with tribal leaders provided a range of proposals 

and recommendations. The new organization reflects a synthesis of the views heard 

during the consultation process. It will meet fiduciary trust responsibilities, be more 

accountable at every level, and operate with people trained in the principles of fiduciary trust management. 

The Department recently issued a Comprehensive Trust Management Plan to address trust reform. In addition to work outlined in the Plan to move forward on 

trust improvement initiatives, the Department is also actively engaged in the historical accounting for individual Indian account holders. Completion of a yearlong 

project to document trust business processes provides the Department with the information necessary to begin a major re-engineering task of these processes. The reengineering or ‘‘To-Be’’ process as it is known is an integral part of the Comprehensive Trust management Plan. 

Question. Do you have any recent indication from the Court that moving forward 

with the reorganization is timely, or adequate to address the current problems? 

Answer. We have not received any response from the Court regarding the reorganization. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE GRANT PROGRAMS

Question. The Department has proposed two new grant programs over the last 

two years called the Landowner Incentive Program and the Private Stewardship 

Grants Program. There were some difficulties establishing eligibility requirements 

and criteria for allocating these funds. 

What is the status of these two programs now? Are funds getting out the door? 

Answer. The Secretary announced the approval of State Landowner Incentive Program proposals from 42 States in the amount of $34.8 million on February 25, 2003. 

Funds will be made available through grants to these States once they submit their 

complete package of grant agreement papers and the Service signs them. 

Of the 42 States, 39 have programs approved for Tier 1 grants (emphasis on 

building a program infrastructure), and 22 are approved for Tier 2 grants (on-theground conservation work). As of May 28, four Tier 1 LIP grants were signed and 

are now active in the States of Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska. A Tier 

2 grant is active in Minnesota. 

The Service has received additional grant documentation from eight other States 

for Tier 1 grants (Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, 

Washington, and Wisconsin), and two States for Tier 2 grants (Nebraska and South 

Carolina). The Service anticipates these additional 10 programs will be awarded 

grants in June. Most of the remaining States are nearing the end of their State fiscal years (June 30), and the Service expects most will establish grants for their approved programs later in the summer. 

The grant awards for the Private Stewardship Grants Program were announced 

on May 28, 2003. More than $9.4 million will be awarded under this innovative program to individuals and groups to undertake conservation projects on private lands 

for endangered, threatened, and other at-risk species. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

spent additional time working with States and potential grant applicants to help 
97

them understand the new program and its requirements. Project proposals were 

originally due to the Service’s Regional Offices by December 1, 2002, but after many 

applicants requested more time, the due date was extended to January 15, 2003, 

providing the public more than 100 days to develop and submit project proposals. 

We do not anticipate having such a long application period this year, and anticipate 

being able to award grants at an earlier date in the spring of 2004. 

Question. How many projects have been funded thus far? 

Answer. Of the 42 States approved for Landowner Incentive Program grants to 

fund their programs, the States of Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, and Nebraska have 

Tier 1 grants in place; Nebraska and South Carolina have Tier 2 grants. Tier 1 

grants are small (up to $180,000), and emphasize agency infrastructure and capability building. Most on-the-ground conservation projects will be conducted in the 22 

States approved for the larger Tier 2 grants. The Service will act to award grants 

for these approved programs once it receives the State documents. We awarded approximately $9.4 million to about 113 projects in some 42 states ranging from Alaska to New York. 

Question. Will the Committee have the track record of accomplishments that we 

can evaluate how to fund these programs in fiscal year 2004? 

Answer. While some Landowner Incentive Program projects will be initiated in 

the States this summer, the Service will not receive the first annual performance 

reports for these grants until the summer or fall of 2004. These reports will describe 

accomplishments and are due after the first year of the project period. As a point 

of interest, there are 28 States and 6 Territories that did not receive any Tier 2 conservation project funding in fiscal year 2003. Many of these are eager to gain initial 

funding to start projects with private landowners in their jurisdictions. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service will be able to provide the Committee with a list 

of projects selected for funding through the Private Stewardship Grants Program including information on the objectives to be reached through the funding of each 

project. At a later date, a full analysis of the accomplishments of implementing 

these projects under the Private Stewardship Grants Program can be provided. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR TED STEVENS

ALASKA CONVEYANCE PROGRAM

Question. An issue of concern to myself and Senator Lisa Murkowski is the pace 

of the Bureau of Land Management’s Alaska Conveyance program. As you know, 

the BLM was tasked with completing work on Native allotments and land selections 

mandated by both the Alaska Statehood Act of 1959 and the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act of 1971. That task has not been completed. 

This delay has severely impacted the ability of the State of Alaska and our Native 

groups from developing their resources and furthering the economic development of 

the State. Language included in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill 

directs the Bureau to develop a plan to ensure that allotments and conveyances are 

completed by 2009. I would like to get your commitment that the BLM will abide 

by its obligations and complete the land conveyance program by 2009. 

I know that Senator Murkowski is committed to assisting you and the BLM in 

this effort through her membership on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and I commit to providing the BLM the resources it needs to develop this 

plan. 

Answer. BLM is developing the plan required in the 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill, and is exploring options for improving the conveyance process. A Senate 

hearing on this issue is scheduled to take place in Anchorage on August 6, 2003. 

ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT

Question. Another issue is the National Park Service’s proposed regulations concerning the issuance and administration of commercial use authorizations in national parks. As expressed to you in a February 6, 2003 letter from Senator Murkowski, Congressman Don Young, and myself, these proposed regulations fail to 

comply with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. The 1980 

law is the controlling authority on public lands in Alaska and any Park Service regulations must conform with this law. I would like your assurance that the Department and the Park Service are committed to working with the State of Alaska, interested parties, and Alaska Native Groups in developing regulations that are consistent with the 1980 law. 

Answer. The draft regulations were published for comment in the Federal Register (Volume 67, Number 229) on November 27, 2002 as 36 CFR Part 52. Though 
98

the draft regulations do not reference the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), it has always been our understanding that they must 

conform to ANILCA as they are applied in Alaska. The draft regulations implement 

Section 418 of the National Park Service Concessions Management Improvement 

Act of 1998 (16 USC 5901 et seq.). Section 415 (c) of the same law states:

‘‘ANILCA.—Nothing in this title amends, supersedes, or otherwise affects any provision of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et 

seq.) relating to revenue-producing visitor services.’’

Comments were received from organized groups, their members, individual operators, and from within the NPS. The National Park Service intends to establish a 

multi-disciplinary work group under the umbrella of the Secretary’s Concession 

Management Advisory Board (Board), covered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, to review the comments and develop a second draft rule. The work group 

will consist of interagency personnel, representatives of private sector interested 

parties including affected commercial operators in Alaska, and designated officials 

of the Board. This approach will allow for consideration of the business need for a 

predictable, stable platform while ensuring consistency with the preservation and 

conservation of park resources. Recommendations of the work group will roll-up to 

the full Advisory Board in a public meeting and this consultation will occur prior 

to drafting the next published rule. 

DENALI NATIONAL PARK

Question. Additionally, Denali National Park recently issued its draft backcountry 

management plan. I am concerned that some of the alternatives, if implemented, 

would restrict public access to our parks. Access to public lands is an issue I have 

struggled to protect first as a Solicitor in your Department, in the Alaska State 

House, and in my 34 years in the Senate. I will oppose any plan which imposes unnecessary limits on the public’s right to visit their parks. 

I understand that Denali’s Superintendent and his staff have held public hearings 

and meetings on this management plan. I encourage these efforts in order to ensure 

that the final plan balances the protection of our natural resources with the public’s 

right to access for recreational, economic, and social purposes. 

Answer. Public enjoyment of Denali National Park and Preserve is extremely important. The National Park Service emphasizes this point in the first chapter of the 

park’s Draft Backcountry Management Plan. One of the primary objectives of the 

new plan is to: ‘‘provide for the public’s maximum freedom of use and enjoyment 

of the park’s backcountry and wilderness in a manner that is consistent with park 

purposes and the protection of park resources and values.’’ Consistent with this objective, the National Park Service does not intend to impose unnecessary limits on 

the public’s right to visit or enjoy their park. 

Meeting the Congressional direction to provide for enjoyment while at the same 

time protecting Denali National Park and Preserve’s resources and values, requires 

the National Park Service to manage access and use. This management is not intended to unnecessarily restrict the public’s right of access. Quite the opposite, careful implementation of the alternatives in the draft plan will provide for more visitor 

access, and will accommodate greater numbers of visitors than are accommodated 

today under current management strategies. The National Park Service will carefully evaluate, and appropriately incorporate, all of the public comments received on 

the draft plan to ensure that the final plan balances the protection of our natural 

resources with the public’s right to access for recreational, economic, and social purposes. 

The alternatives in the Draft Backcountry Management Plan were developed in 

collaboration with the public over the past four years. The National Park Service 

first held a series of public scoping meetings in 1999 in Anchorage, Fairbanks, 

Talkeetna/Trapper Creek, and McKinley Village to define issues and impact topics 

to address in the plan. Approximately 150 people attended the meetings and the 

NPS received 65 written comments. The NPS next sent a preliminary alternatives 

newsletter to 2,000 addresses on the park mailing list in January 2001, outlining 

ideas for alternatives. This newsletter was followed up with open house meetings 

in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Talkeetna/Trapper Creek, Cantwell, and Healy. After receiving comments on the newsletter and in the meetings, the NPS continued to meet 

frequently and solicit feedback from interest groups representing such diverse park 

constituencies as aviation, snow machine users, mountaineering guides, conservation organizations, and the State of Alaska. Information from these ongoing contacts 

shaped the alternatives in the draft plan printed in February 2003. 
99

After publishing the draft plan, the National Park Service held six informational 

workshops in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Wasilla, Talkeetna/Trapper Creek, Cantwell, 

and Healy during March 2003 to help the public understand the draft plan and its 

implications. These workshops were followed in April by public hearings in each of 

those communities and in Lake Minchumina. In addition, all individuals who had 

previously expressed interest were personally notified by mail and telephone of the 

draft plan’s release. 

Opportunities for public comment were available through May 30, 2003 by mail, 

e-mail, and directly through the park web site as well as at the public hearings. 

Park staff will continue contacts with interested groups and individuals as they 

produce the final plan. 

SPRUCE BARK BEETLES

Question. I am pleased with the proactive stance the administration has taken in 

the area of wildfire prevention and suppression through the Healthy Forests Initiative. In recent years, we have witnessed catastrophic fires, which burned over 7.1 

million acres, affecting several regions in the United States, including Alaska. 

In Alaska, we have a particular problem with spruce bark beetles, which have 

decimated spruce forests in the Kenai Peninsula area along the Kachemak Bay Watershed and the Copper River Basin near Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. The spruce bark beetle problem along with an extremely dry winter season 

in Alaska raises serious concerns for this coming fire season. I hope that your efforts 

in fire prevention and suppression will include funding to address Alaska’s spruce 

bark beetle problem. 

Answer. The State of Alaska is currently undergoing one of the largest spruce 

bark beetle infestations ever observed. As much as four million acres of forestlands, 

across all ownerships, have been affected during the last 15 years, of which only 

100,000 acres are managed by the BLM. Only 10,000 acres of the infested lands 

managed by the BLM are accessible and could be harvested with timber sales. Although some of this infected timber has been offered for sale by BLM, the sales have 

not sold due to poor market conditions. The majority of the timber has deteriorated 

to the point where it has no value as a commercial product. 

The Bureau recognizes that the dry winter and the build-up of fuels resulting 

from this beetle outbreak creates some formidable challenges for this fire season 

and for years to come. The Bureau and its partners are prepared to meet this challenge and protect the communities and resources in Alaska. The BLM is currently 

working with rural communities in Alaska to reduce the threat of wildfire, including 

providing financial and technical support to the communities and their fire departments, collaboratively identifying conditions and planning actions to reduce those 

threats, and reducing hazardous fuels within the wildland-urban interface. Where 

spruce bark beetles have killed timber in these areas, BLM will continue to try to 

find markets for the material as it is removed during fuel reduction treatments. 

FEDERALLY-OWNED LAND STATISTICS

Question. As you know, we have begun the fiscal year 2004 appropriations process. It has come to my attention that the Committee does not have the most current 

data for public lands being administered by the Department of the Interior. In order 

to appropriately allocate scarce resources toward the management of the public 

lands, I request that the Department provide the Committee with statistics on Federally-owned land by agency in each State and territory by acreage and percentage 

of State total area. These statistics should also include the total wilderness areas 

within each State. 

Answer. The Department will compile this information and transmit it to the Subcommittee under separate cover. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

CROWNPOINT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

Question. The Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT) is one of only two tribal 

vocational-technical schools in the country. CIT plays a critical role in training Native American students for employment. The school has a successful program in 

which an average of 87 percent of its students is placed in jobs upon graduation. 

A successful post-secondary vocational-technical school such as CIT is a tremendous 

resource for Native Americans. 

Unfortunately, the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request does not include 

specific funding for CIT. 
100

Given the important and specific roles the two vocational/technical schools play 

on educating young Native Americans, why has specific funding for CIT been deleted? 

Answer. One of the Department’s strategic goals is to support development of 

quality communities for tribes by improving education. An important component of 

this goal is supporting higher education to provide students with the knowledge and 

skills they need to become successfully employed. The Bureau currently operates 

two fully accredited post-secondary schools, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) and Haskell Indian Nations University, and provides funding for 25 

Tribally controlled colleges and universities. 

CIT is not bureau operated nor is it eligible for funding under the authority of 

the Tribally Controlled Community College or Universities Assistance Act, as 

amended. CIT is eligible for funding under the Carl D. Perkins Act, as amended, 

and receives funding under authority of the Act through a grant program administered by the Department of Education. The Department of Education provided 

$6.955 million under this authority to post-secondary schools in fiscal year 2003, of 

which CIT received $3.8 million. 

Question. What considerations would you take into account when determining 

funding allocations for schools like CIT? 

Answer. The Bureau takes into consideration education funding priorities for the 

existing K–12 programs, eligible TCCCs, and Bureau post-secondary schools. While 

CIT is meeting an important and unique need for those students who attend it, the 

Bureau takes into consideration authorizing legislation. Currently, there is no statutory authorization for the Bureau to fund schools like CIT, which is neither Bureau 

operated nor eligible for funding under the authority of the Tribally Controlled Community College or Universities Assistance Act, as amended (Public Law 95–471.). 

Public Law 95–471 permits each Tribe to apply for operating grants for a single 

TCCC. CIT is a Navajo school. CIT is ineligible for TCCC funding because another 

Navajo school, Dine College, currently receives funding under authority of Public 

Law 95–471. 

CIT is eligible for funding under the Carl D. Perkins Act, as amended, and receives funding under authority of the Act through a grant program administered by 

the Department of Education. The Department of Education provided $6.955 million 

under this authority to post-secondary schools in fiscal year 2003, of which CIT received $3.8 million. 

INDIAN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION

Question. Secure, modern, and pleasant school facilities are critical to the education of all students. To that end, I am pleased to see that President Bush sustains 

the current level of commitment to replace deteriorated BIA schools through new 

construction with his request of $292.6 million. These funds are critically needed to 

continue to address the backlog for repairs, renovation, and replacement for all federally owned and operated BIA elementary and secondary schools. 

While I am pleased with the overall request, I am concerned that the $131.4 million proposed for the replacement of schools does not specify the dollar amount going 

to each project. New Mexico has five schools on the replacement list for fiscal year 

2004—Isleta Elementary School; Mescalero Apache Elementary School; Pueblo 

Pintado Community School; Navajo Prep School, Phase II; and Wingate High 

School, Phase II. 

Specifically, could you address my concerns that the failure to delineate specific 

funds for the listed schools may lead to unnecessary confusion, delay, and at worst, 

failure to provide adequate funding for the projects? 

Answer. During formulation of the 2004 Budget, the Administration began using 

the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to identify strengths and weaknesses 

of programs and to inform budget, management, and policy activities regarding recommendations. The process generated extensive information on program effectiveness and accountability including the need for additional performance measures. 

One of the principal PART findings for Indian School Construction program was 

that it had limited flexibility to adjust funds appropriated to a specific project when 

there are delays or changes due to planning or design which impact the original cost 

estimate for the project. The fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget reflects a policy 

change to no longer provide cost estimates for individual projects for replacement 

schools or facilities improvement and repair until the planning documents and design for the projects are developed to the point where adequate information is available to make a reasonably accurate cost estimate. This will greatly improve accountability for program funding. 
101

Question. Generally, would you please describe the efforts of the Department of 

the Interior to replace aging structures that pose a health and safety threat and 

make learning difficult? 

Answer. The Bureau has undertaken an intense effort on the President’s commitment to reduce the maintenance backlog and has developed a five-year Maintenance 

and Construction Plan to address aging structures. Each fiscal year plan includes 

the projects of greatest need in priority order with special focus first on critical 

health and safety. The Bureau has also developed a Facilities Management Information System (FMIS) to improve the management of deferred maintenance, major facilities improvement and repair, and replacement school construction projects. The 

system effectively tracks improvements and facility conditions associated with 

health, safety, disability access, classroom size, computer, and communications technology space. The data in FMIS is used to determine funding for the highest priority 

items in the maintenance backlog of health and safety deficiencies. 

SANTA FE INDIAN SCHOOL RECONSTRUCTION FUNDING

Question. The President requested, and the Congress approved, $23.2 million for Santa Fe Indian School in fiscal year 2002, and another $15.3 million in fiscal year 

2003. In addition, the Santa Fe Indian School requires $9.2 million to complete its 

replacement project. There was to be a phase 3 to the project that included a gym 

and health facility, an administrative building, and site modifications. The Santa Fe 

Indian School was notified that phase 3 would not be funded and that no funding 

would be in the fiscal year 2004 budget as anticipated. 

Considering the stated goals of the President’s Indian Education Initiative and No 

Child Left Behind programs, could you explain why the budget request did not include funding to complete the Santa Fe Indian School replacement project as 

planned? 

Answer. Schools compete for ranking on the BIA priority list for replacement 

school construction. Higher rankings are given to schools with critical health and 

safety needs and for which current facility program space is insufficient for current 

approved education program offerings. 

When evaluating the Santa Fe Indian School Phase 3 construction project proposal, it was determined that Santa Fe Indian School is located within walking distance of a U.S. Indian Public Health Service hospital, an administrative building exists on site, the status of the current gym does not warrant complete replacement, 

and the needed site work was for sidewalk, curb, and gutter improvements. Based 

on this assessment, other schools more effectively competed for school replacement 

construction funds. 

SOUTHWESTERN INDIAN POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE (SIPI)

Question. The Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in Albuquerque, 

New Mexico is a national vocational-technical school that enrolls approximately 750 

students representing 100 Indian tribes from across the nation. SIPI provides Indian students with post-secondary educational opportunities and technical job skills. 

The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request of $5.593 million for the 

post-secondary schools of SIPI and the Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas 

does not reflect the funding needed to implement the new funding formula that 

would bring parity in funding to the two institutions. SIPI and Haskell collaborated 

on the new formula, which was enacted in the Omnibus Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2000. The formula language was again included in the 2001 Appropriations Act 

to direct the allocation of increased operating funds for the unmet needs identified 

for both SIPI and Haskell. 

The BIA has now adopted the SIPI/Haskell funding formula as its model for all 

post-secondary school funding proposals, yet it has never been implemented. SIPI 

would require a total of $10.641 million in fiscal year 2004 to implement the new 

funding formula. There are concerns that without this funding the SIPI will be unable to fill key faculty positions, update its library, maintain the college’s information infrastructure system, meet new educational demands, and strengthen student 

support services. 

Why has the BIA-adopted funding formula not been fully funded? 

Answer. To meet the needs of each of the post-secondary institutions, BIA has allocated funds proportional to their enrollment. The formula that was developed by 

SIPI and Haskell was to be applied to any increases in funding levels. 

Unfortunately, the Department of the Interior is faced with making difficult 

choices in setting priorities for funding for the post-secondary institutions. Funding 

has been relatively flat for the past several years. One of the Department’s strategic 

goals is to support development of quality communities for tribes by improving edu-
102

cation. In the 2004 budget, funding increases were targeted to the primary and secondary education levels—areas of higher priority to the Tribes on a nationwide 

basis. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

OIL AND GAS PERMITTING ON FEDERAL LANDS

Question. A recent report by the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain 

States shows that companies looking for oil and gas on Federal leases contend with 

increasing uncertainties and, in many cases, extreme delays in trying to acquire the 

necessary permits to conduct activities. Using BLM’s own data, the average APD 

now takes on average 137 days to be approved and in some cases have taken over 

365 days to approve. 

If the statute states that a typical APD should be approved within 30 days, and 

the average approval time is 107 days beyond that, please identify the primary obstacles that exist in approving an APD in a timely manner. 

Answer. There is no statutory requirement that BLM approve an APD within 30 

days. APD processing times are prescribed in BLM’s own regulations (43CFR 3162 

and Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 issued under 43CFR 3164). The BLM has promulgated regulations that state: 

‘‘III D. Processing Time Frames. The following table summarizes the major time 

frames involved in processing most APD’s:

APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DRILL OPTION 

Action item Days 

Onsite inspection ............................................................. Within 15 days after receipt of the APD. 

Requirements to be imposed when APD is approved ..... Developed onsite, or within 5 working days thereafter. 

Complete processing of APD ........................................... Within 30 days of the APD’s receipt, provided that it is technically 

and administratively complete at the end of the 30-day period 

(includes the above 15-day and 5-day periods). 

NOTICE OF STAKING OPTION 

Action items Days 

Onsite inspection ............................................................. Within 15 days after receipt of the NOS. 

Requirements for inclusion in APD ................................. Furnished onsite or within 5 working days thereafter. 

Complete processing of APD ........................................... Within 10 days of the APD’s receipt, provided that it is technically 

and administratively complete at the end of the 10-day period. 

The above time frames, together, comprise the total period during which the BLM 

anticipates it will be able to process approximately 90 percent of all APD’s. However, the 30 days may not run consecutively . . . .’’

BLM has self imposed a 30 day time frame for the processing of most APDs. As 

stated in BLM’s Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1, these 30 days may not be consecutive. If an incomplete APD is received, the Bureau must wait to complete the processing of the permit until the operator submits all required information. The BLM 

does not include the days between the initial receipt of the application and the day 

when all required information is submitted in the 30 day processing time frame, according to Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1. Since fiscal year 2000, the Bureau has 

approved 38 percent of the APDs within the 30 day time frame. Although the BLM 

is not currently meeting its objective of 90 percent, it continues to explore alternatives for increasing this percentage. 

The BLM is revising Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 to clarify the requirements 

of a complete application. This clarification should reduce the number of incomplete 

APDs submitted and decrease overall processing times. 

Other factors that may extend the processing times beyond the 30 days include 

the need to: (1) complete any supplemental NEPA analysis, (2) consult with other 

surface managing agencies (primarily Forest Service), (3) obtain any necessary cultural clearances, and (4) maintain staffing support for ADP processing. 

Applications for oil and gas development that are proposed over large acreages 

may require the development of an Environmental Impact Statement to fulfill National Environmental Policy Act requirements. For example, the Bureau spent two 
103

years completing the EIS that examines the impacts of coalbed natural gas development in the Powder River Basin. Some BLM Field Offices had not been accepting 

any new APDs for coalbed natural gas, due to the existing large backlog of APDs. 

Now that the Powder River Basin EIS is completed, Field Offices will be able to 

begin processing the backlogged APDs and accept new applications. The processing 

of APDs will be extended any time a major field development EIS is required. 

In situations where BLM is required to approve surface disturbance for another 

surface-management agency, such as the Forest Service, additional time may be 

needed to allow BLM to coordinate with the other agency. BLM is working with 

other surface-management agencies to improve coordination and consistency and reduce the time it takes to complete the APD process on non-BLM lands. 

Cultural clearances can also extend time frame for APD processing. If a cultural 

clearance is required, and a cultural clearance report has not been completed prior 

to submission of the APD, delays can be expected. It typically takes a minimum of 

30 days from submission of a cultural clearance report to the State Historic Preservation Officer to get concurrence that historic and cultural resources are being protected. Onshore Oil and Gas Order#1 encourages operators to check with the BLM 

at least 15 days before submitting an APD or NOS to determine if a cultural clearance will be required. 

The Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 requires BLM to 

post all APDs for at least 30 days prior to approval. The process could be extended 

as a result of this requirement. 

Due to unanticipated changes in demand in the last few years, staffing has not 

kept pace with workload in some BLM Field Offices. Additional funding provided 

in 2002 and 2003 budgets and continued in the President’s Budget for fiscal year 

2004 funds increased staffing. 

Question. What steps can be taken administratively to improve this process? What 

realistic legislative remedies might exist that would provide additional resources to 

improving the permitting process? 

Answer. The BLM is taking several steps to improve the APD processing time 

frames. On April 14, 2003, the BLM Washington Office issued five Instruction Memorandums (IMs) on APD process improvements. These IMs cover Conditions of Approval, Cultural Resources, revision of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No.1, Comprehensive Strategies, and revision of the Oil and Gas ‘‘Gold Book’’. 

The IM on Conditions of Approval (IM 2003–146) directed BLM field offices to 

supply the Washington Office with copies of conditions of approval currently being 

used. The Washington Office is developing standard conditions of approval and guidance on how to develop reasonable and enforceable conditions of approval. 

The IM on Cultural Resources (IM 2003–147) identifies some ‘‘best practices’’ 

being used in some BLM field offices concerning cultural resources. All field offices 

are instructed to use these ‘‘best practices’’ to help streamline the APD processing 

time frames. 

The IM on Revision of Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (IM 2003–151) and the 

IM on Revision of the Oil and Gas ‘‘Gold Book’’ (IM 2003–153) initiates the rewriting of two references used by oil and gas operators on standards concerning surface 

use for oil and gas operations. These revisions will provide oil and gas applicants 

with improved direction on application requirements. 

The IM on Comprehensive Strategies (IM 2003–152) outlines ‘‘best practices’’ 

strategies that field offices can implement to streamline the APD processing time. 

Currently, the BLM does not require any legislative remedies to improve APD 

processing. As the BLM progresses with APD streamlining efforts, Congress will be 

notified if new legislation is determined to be necessary. 

Question. Finally, please provide the Committee with a recommended funding 

level that would be expected in order to bring the fiscal resources in line with the 

demands in the field. 

Answer. The 2004 President’s Budget request includes an increase of $350,000 to 

bring the fiscal resources in line with current APD demands and $2.5 million for 

inspections, enforcement, and monitoring associated with this level of energy development. 

FEDERAL PERMIT STREAMLINING PILOT PROJECT

Question. A pilot project has been suggested as a means of helping to streamline 

the Federal permit process for energy related projects. While it does not specifically 

address APD backlogs, it is my understanding that a pilot project has been included 

in the Senate Energy Committee’s proposed energy bill. 

Please comment on the proposed pilot program to streamline federal permit processing currently under consideration before Congress. 
104

Answer. The proposed program in Section 122 of the Senate Energy Bill would 

establish a Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project. This proposal has also been 

known as the ‘‘Tiger Team Proposal’’. Section 122 calls for Federal agencies to assign on a non-reimbursable basis employees to serve under BLM Field Managers 

in six offices. These six teams would work on proposed energy projects, planning 

and environmental analyses. We have several comments on this section. 

Governors should be encouraged to support pilot projects in their respective States 

by signing the Memorandum of Understanding that defines the arrangement in the 

pilot States. 

Currently, the Energy Bill proposes that six offices participate in the Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project. The Bureau recommends that the pilot project be implemented in only one office, Buffalo, Wyoming. This team would work on reducing 

the backlog in the Powder River Basin. Once the team has completed that task, it 

would then work in other offices to reduce the APD backlog. 

Interagency teams should include personnel from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or other agencies within the Department of Interior, 

and the USDA Forest Service, that the BLM is required to contact as part of the 

NEPA process for oil and gas operations. 

Question. What impact, if any, might this pilot program have upon addressing the 

issue of the APD backlog? 

Answer. Initially this pilot program will have little effect on handling the existing 

APD backlog, because most of the backlog of permit processing was caused by issues 

that are currently being addressed (e.g. Powder River Basin EIS), or are due to the 

submission of incomplete applications by operators. In the future, the pilot program 

could resolve or prevent backlogs from occurring. 

Question. Please comment on the feasibility of developing a similar pilot program 

specifically for Federal oil and gas permitting within BLM to address APD permit 

backlogs. 

Answer. The BLM has been looking into the idea of a pilot program where a team 

of specialists within the BLM would be available to Field Offices to assist with processing oil and gas operations backlogs related to Federal permitting. The team could 

be centrally located, or could be dispersed in several field offices, but when a Field 

Office requires assistance, the team would be temporarily relocated to that office. 

It is believed that this approach would enable the BLM to accelerate the processing 

time of APDs and other related oil and gas applications. 

Question. Would such a program be effective in reducing the backlog, and providing greater predictability in the permitting process? Is it feasible that such a program might be put together in a timely manner and begin to take effect within 

weeks of being funded by Congress? 

Answer. Yes, it is believed that such an approach could reduce or eliminate the 

present backlog of APDs within two years, though the effects of new demand during 

that two-year period cannot be estimated. 

Question. Has BLM taken steps to develop a ‘‘best practices’’ program for BLM 

Field Offices to share information, processes, and expertise in the permitting process? If so, what is the status of the program? 

Answer. BLM has been using ‘‘best practices’’ of Field Offices to improve BLM 

management of the public lands nationwide. In the past, the BLM did not effectively 

highlight ‘‘best practices’’ to other Field Offices. The BLM is working to improve the 

dissemination of information concerning ‘‘best practices’’. 

MOJAVE DESERT TORTOISE

Question. The recent GAO report regarding the efforts to recover the Mojave 

desert tortoise stated that at least $100 million has been spent since its first listing. 

However, the GAO was unable to identify any Fish and Wildlife Service documentation regarding its population trends or whether any of that money has been effective 

in recovering the species. 

What is the Department’s response to the report and what is being done to provide some direction to this extraordinary amount that is being spent on the species’ 

recovery? 

Anwer. The Department concurs with the recommendations in GAO’s final report, 

Research Strategy and Long-term Monitoring Needed for the Mojave Desert Tortoise 

Recovery Program. Expenditures for the desert tortoise include those for habitat acquisition, research, surveys, plan development, habitat enhancement, and agency 

staff time. Habitat acquisition, the largest expenditure category, has contributed significantly to the protection of biologically important areas necessary to achieve recovery objectives. Although recovery actions have been implemented, tortoise habitat and populations may not respond in a measurable way for several to many years 
105

afterward. We acknowledge that information on the status of tortoise populations 

and habitats affected by land management actions is limited; however, collection of 

population trend data is in progress under the direction and oversight of the Service. We have been working with many partners and stakeholders to establish a collaborative process for implementing recovery actions through a science-based adaptive management approach that all interested parties can embrace. The Desert Management Oversight Group provides a structure for the implementation of recovery 

and research priorities, and the Service has completed a more effective expenditures 

reporting system for the next fiscal year. 

Question. Many restrictions have arisen as a result of the desert tortoise, including grazing reductions and development restrictions. This is a burden that falls 

heavily upon the local communities. 

Answer. The Service and other federal agencies have employed several tools to implement the Endangered Species Act while accommodating existing land use practices as much as possible. Regional habitat conservation plans have been implemented in Nevada and Utah to allow development and facilitate recovery of the species with active community involvement. Federal agencies have purchased cattle 

grazing allotments from willing sellers and worked with local groups to reduce the 

impacts of activities on lands with tortoise habitat. We are assessing further options 

to conserve the desert tortoise while minimizing economic impacts. In January 2003, 

the Service appointed the Recovery Plan Assessment Committee and initiated reassessment of the 1994 Recovery Plan. During the reassessment process, we will 

evaluate new information on the status and conservation needs of the tortoise, and 

ensure that research is applied towards management needs as recommended by the 

GAO. 

Question. What is being done on the federal end by the Service to set goals and 

track the population trends and recovery of the species so that at some point in the 

future the species might recover and be [de]listed? 

Answer. The Service recently met with stakeholder groups and federal, state, and 

local partners to discuss development of a recovery strategy and direction for the 

revised desert tortoise recovery plan. Workshops are being held to address issues 

such as disease, predation, and population monitoring. The Recovery Plan Assessment Committee will evaluate the delisting criteria and consider the appropriateness of designating the existing recovery units as distinct population segments. If 

designated as such, any given distinct population segments may be delisted independently by achieving its stated recovery objectives. Development of a statistically 

valid monitoring program for a wide-ranging species that occurs underground most 

of the year has proved to be challenging. However, we are pursuing implementation 

of a line distance sampling technique to obtain statistically valid population data 

and track population trends across the range of the species. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Question. The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Paymentin-Lieu-of-Taxes program (PILT) is $200 million. This amount is $18.5 million below 

the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, a cut of 8.5 percent. Why has the administration 

sought to cut this program? What was the Department’s request for the PILT program to the Office of Management and Budget? How much will North Dakota receive under the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $218.5 million? How much would 

North Dakota receive under the President’s budget request of $200 million? 

Answer. Although the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget request for PILT of 

$200 million is $18.5 million below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, it is $35 million more than the fiscal year 2003 request of $165 million. The Department’s request to OMB is part of the Administration’s pre-decisional budget process and is 

therefore not subject to release. Under the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $218.5 

million, North Dakota will receive an estimated $1 million in PILT payments. 

Under the President’s budget request of $200 million, North Dakota would receive 

an estimated $800,000. 

Question. The Department of the Interior has indicated that an additional $2 million is needed in fiscal year 2003 to pay for court-ordered endangered species listing 

actions. While the Department has provided the Committee with documentation of 

the shortfall in listing funding, no formal request has been made to bridge this gap. 

Does the Department have a solution to this problem? 

Answer. The White House formally requested that the Congress adopt a technical 

amendment to raise the cap for listing from $9 million to $11 million and the subcap for critical habitat from $6 million to $8 million. If this is approved, the Department intends to ask the Committee’s approval for a reprogramming of $2 million 
106

in funds from other endangered species program elements to listing. This will fund 

our fiscal year 2003 listing shortfall. In addition, the President’s budget contains an 

increase in the listing budget of about $3.3 million—which includes an increase of 

$3.8 million for critical habitat for already listed species and a decrease for other 

listing activities of $600,000.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator BURNS. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee will 

stand in recess to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 22, in 

room SD–124. At that time we will hear testimony from the Honorable Spencer Abraham, Secretary, Department of Energy. 

[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., Thursday, April 10, the subcommittee 

was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Thursday, May 22.]
(107)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2004

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2003

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met at 9:30 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Burns, Domenici, Dorgan, and Byrd. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM, SECRETARY 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

Senator BURNS. We’re going to call the committee to order this 

morning, Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming. I’ve got a brief 

statement on my opening and then the ranking member, Senator 

Dorgan, will be along soon and we will take his statement and if 

he has questions, we will allow him to do that. He’s running on a 

tight tether today, and I understand you are too. And I think we 

are going to have a stack of votes this morning, and with the President being in HC–5, once you get into the bowels of that building, 

it takes a while to free yourself. 

First of all, we’re glad to see you here to discuss the budget this 

morning for the Department of Energy. I know we struggled a bit 

to get this hearing on your schedule and I know you made some 

changes to accommodate us, we appreciate that. 

The Department’s request for activities under the subcommittee’s jurisdiction represents an effective cut of around $120 million. That 

is a considerable reduction for energy activity. Of course the reason 

it falls under this committee is because of the vast amount of our 

energy found on public lands under our jurisdiction. We can quibble over transfers and deferrals, but I think it’s fair that we discuss 

some of these reductions as that is the reason we hold these hearings. 

Within the total you have requested, there are some very healthy 

increases in some selected programs. The budget increases weatherization by $65 million, in keeping with the President’s intention 

to double the program. The budget includes $40 million for the National Climate Change Technology Initiative for climate change-re-
108

lated research, $23 million of which is under this subcommittee’s 

jurisdiction. And the budget increases fuel cell research within the 

Office of Energy Efficiency by $22 million, and includes the increases to support the President’s Freedom Car Initiative. 

We are anxious to hear more about these proposals, Mr. Secretary, and I expect you will find at least conceptual support for 

many of them from this subcommittee. The problem is that the 

budget also includes fairly severe cuts in other important programs. The oil and gas programs within the Office of Fossil Energy 

have been cut in half. The fuels program within the Office of Fossil 

Energy has been completely eliminated, and the Industries of the 

Future program has been reduced about two-thirds. 

We recognize, Mr. Secretary, that you are compelled to operate 

under some fairly restrictive budget constraints and we are certainly not opposed to reducing some programs in favor of others as 

national priorities change, and as successes and failures in your research programs become known. 

But I think what you will find concerns us most is the severity 

of some of these reductions, and the fact that some of them may 

result in us failing to capitalize on important research that has 

been supported by this committee for many, many years, and the 

research done in those areas has been fairly sizable. It is important, Mr. Secretary, to maintain a robust and balanced R&D program in the Department, one that enhances our Nation’s energy security and enables our economy to grow without sacrificing environmental quality, and I think the focus today will be whether your 

budget request is adequate to sustain such a program. 

Your testimony will help us as we begin to draft this appropriations bill under some very tight constraints and again, we appreciate you being here this morning. I think it will also help our deliberations on the energy bill, which I hope the Senate will return 

to after the Memorial Day recess. 

I now turn to our ranking member, my good friend from North 

Dakota, Senator Dorgan. Good morning. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Senator Burns, thank you very much, and 

thank you for holding this hearing. 

Senator BURNS. You didn’t bring any more weed this morning? 

Senator DORGAN. Since we’re dealing with the Energy Department, I should have brought a gallon of gas perhaps, but the chairman is referring to a noxious weed that I brought to the last hearing, but I am not going to do that in the future. I didn’t know it 

was very effective. 

Let me thank the Secretary for being here. The Secretary and I 

had a chance to visit yesterday, and I know that you are under certain restraints, that there really isn’t any way that you could tell 

us or the audience, or for that matter the press what you really 

think of the Office of Management and Budget. So, I will not ask 

you about that, but let me raise a couple issues, some of the same 

issues that Senator Burns raised. 

You know I’m concerned about the decrease for energy conservation research, I talked to you about that yesterday. I think cutting 

energy conservation research is moving in exactly the wrong direc-
109

tion. I appreciate that the funding for the larger energy efficiency 

and renewable office funded in the energy and water bill is up 

slightly less than 1 percent, but renewable energy research, while 

important in its own right, is not a substitute for efforts focused 

on conserving the amount of energy we use. We use a prodigious 

amount of energy in this country as I’ve stated, and it is exactly 

the same calculation, and we consume 25 percent of the world’s energy, which points to our need to focus on research and development efforts in reducing the amount of energy consumption, so I’m 

concerned about that. 

My colleague Senator Burns said that the budget severely undercuts fossil energy R&D, which accounts for 85 percent of the energy 

resources in this country. Over half of our electricity comes from 

coal, and oil and natural gas account for almost 100 percent of our 

transportation energy needs. Because of this, environmentally 

sound approaches to the management of fossil energy certainly is 

essential to our national energy security. 

Now, we need money for new initiatives, but money for new initiatives should not come from other initiatives that are also very 

important. We talk about a hydrogen economy and fuel cells, and 

I am very appreciative of the present research in that area and this 

is a direction we ought to head, I don’t think you can overstate the 

importance of that. It is very important. I have said that we need 

an Apollo-type program, a program that is bold and aggressive, and 

I suggested around $6.5 billion over a period of years. But having 

said all that, I’m very impressed that the administration put itself 

on record saying let’s move in this regard. So the question isn’t the 

direction so much as it is velocity, and I hope that we can wrap 

this up into an Apollo-type program. But we should not be believing that even as we move in that direction we are going to somehow diminish the use of coal, oil and natural gas long into the future, and the ability to do that in a thoughtful way requires that 

we have adequate research. 

As Senator Burns knows, we have a Commerce Committee hearing ongoing at the moment and I have another appropriations subcommittee as well, so I will not be able to stay for questions, Mr. 

Secretary, but you and I covered most of our concerns yesterday in 

the meeting in my office. And again, I was pleased to serve with 

you in the Congress, here in the Senate, and I am really pleased 

you are where you are. 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Me as well, thank you, Senator. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, we 

look forward to your statement. 

SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM

Secretary ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you and the 

ranking member, we obviously served together for a number of 

years and have come to these projects we work on together from 

a background of previous successful collaboration, and I look forward to continuing that again this year. 

Mr. Chairman, what I propose is that I submit most of the testimony I have here for the record rather than in an oral presentation, give a very brief overview so that we can move ahead with 

the hearing. 
110

Our fiscal year budget for the Department of Energy, both the 

component within this subcommittee as well as the component 

within the Subcommittee on Energy and Water is a request for 

$23.4 billion, and we believe it will allow the Department to help 

address a number of issues that relate to America’s safety and security. This amount is $1.3 billion above the fiscal year 2003 budget request, which is a 5.9 percent increase overall. 

We do recognize, Mr. Chairman, the critical contribution of energy on national defense, that the environment and science and 

technology make to a prosperous as well as a peaceful future, and 

I think this budget continues that work. With regard to our energy 

work, the energy sector, this budget submission is collectively between both subcommittees $2.5 billion. We think it will allow us to 

continue our wide-ranging efforts that will lead to the eventual 

transformation of our energy economy. 

I think the most exciting work and promising areas of long-term 

research and technology expansion either fall wholly or in large 

part within the province of this subcommittee, so I think not just 

this year but in the years ahead, we are going to see a great deal 

of activity going on in programs that this subcommittee has appropriations responsibility for. 

Our fossil energy promotes this administration’s belief that coal 

must be a critical part of our long-term energy future. We recognize 

coal is abundant, it is comparatively inexpensive and is going to be 

used here and around the world. Our administration appreciates 

environmental concerns regarding coal and will devote technology 

to answer those concerns and to guarantee the future widespread 

use of coal. That’s the rationale between the President’s Clean Coal 

Power Initiative, which seeks $2 billion over 10 years to companies 

that work on and test technologies that improve power plant generation and emission of coal. 

In addition, we recognize carbon management requires special 

attention and that’s why our budget this year features a 60 percent 

increase for research into carbon sequestration, which in my view 

and I think in our judgment will be a key to finding methods and 

technologies to reduce, avoid or capture greenhouse gas emissions. 

More importantly, it is that interest as much as any which was behind our recently announced coal-powered generation project of the 

future, we call it Future-Gen, which will lead us to operate the 

world’s first coal-fired, emission-free power plant. Future-Gen will 

take on the challenge of cutting electricity emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gasses and promote the increased use of hydrogen in meeting future energy needs. It is one of, I think, the most 

bold steps we can take towards a pollution-free energy future. 

In addition to the game-changing research in the clean coal area, 

we are likewise engaged in another initiative that in my judgment 

will lead us to a transformation in the energy world with the development of hydrogen fuel cells, as Senator Dorgan referred to earlier, as a power source. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in 

the universe, with nearly a limitless supply, and the use of hydrogen eliminates many of the consequences currently associated with 

fossil fuels. Our administration is very optimistic about the use of 

hydrogen as the transportation fuel of the future. As the President 

noted in his State of the Union address, we are similarly exploring 
111

the use of hydrogen to generate electricity to heat our homes and 

power our businesses, proposing to spend about $1.7 billion dollars 

on hydrogen fuel cell research and development, and the development of the transportation applications of hydrogen. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

I can think of no other program with the potential payoff for our 

Nation’s security, our economic security, our foreign policy and especially for the environment as the work we’re going to be doing 

on hydrogen. I think some day people may look back on that initiative as one of the greatest achievements of this time, and perhaps 

connect it up to the activities of this subcommittee. We look forward to working with the committee on these exciting new ventures as well as our ongoing work related to weatherizaton assistance programs, natural gas, and a host of other topics that time 

doesn’t permit me to go into discussion at this moment of these 

various other initiatives, as well as the ones I mention in my written testimony. I look forward in the Q and A session to having the 

chance to respond to any questions that you might have. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, it is a pleasure to be here 

today to discuss the President’s fiscal year 2004 Budget request for the Department 

of Energy (DOE). 

The total fiscal year 2004 Budget request for the Department of Energy is $23.4 

billion (excluding $123 million advanced appropriated/deferred from fiscal year 

2003). This amount is $1.2 billion above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. This 

Administration recognizes the critical contribution our work on defense, energy security, the environment and world-leading science and technology makes to a peaceful and prosperous future. Of the total $23.4 billion request, $1.7 billion is requested 

for programs funded in the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation under the 

jurisdiction of this Subcommittee. The $1.7 billion Interior Appropriations request 

is $76.7 million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003. 

The total fiscal year 2004 Budget continues the Administration’s commitment to 

ensure national defense and safeguard the Nation’s energy security through advances in science and technology, as well as fulfill our obligation as the environmental stewards to our communities. While DOE’s national policy objectives have 

not changed, this budget reflects a new approach toward conducting business at the 

Department of Energy. Reengineering efforts that we began in fiscal year 2002 have 

taken shape: programmatic activities are better focused to achieve primary mission 

objectives, budget priorities are set with improved measurable performance criteria, 

and corporate management initiatives reflect aggressive implementation of the 

President’s Management Agenda. 

The President’s fiscal year 2004 Budget for the Department of Energy reflects, 

and addresses, the critical challenges we face today and will continue to face in the 

coming decades. I have charted a course for the Department of Energy that emphasizes DOE’s critical contributions to the Nation’s national security and provides forward-reaching solutions to America’s energy problems. My priorities are to meet our 

responsibilities to maintain the nuclear stockpile; expand and make more comprehensive our non-proliferation activities; accelerate the environmental cleanup 

program; develop 21st century cutting edge advanced fuel cell and alternative energy technologies; maintain coal as a major, low-cost, domestically produced, energy 

resource through the Coal Research initiative; build and maintain a stable and effective national defense program to respond to the guidance in the Nuclear Posture 

Review with special emphasis on revitalizing laboratory and production plant infrastructure; continue our leadership to ensure nuclear power remains a key energy 

resource; and maintain a world class scientific research capability. The fiscal year 

2004 Budget is focused to deliver on these priorities. 
112

As part of the Department’s Strategic Planning process these priorities translate 

into six overlapping Departmental goals that form our core mission of National Security. All of the Department’s planning and budgeting for fiscal year 2004 drives 

toward these six goals: 

—Maintain a safe, secure and reliable nuclear deterrent 

—Control nuclear proliferation 

—Reduce dependence on energy imports 

—Achieve a cleaner, healthier environment 

—Improve our energy infrastructure to ensure the reliable delivery of energy, and 

—Maintain a world-class scientific research capability 

Formulation of this year’s budget reflects significant management changes occurring within the Department of Energy. Guided by the President’s Management 

Agenda and my management reforms started in fiscal year 2003, this budget implements integrated, long-term program planning and performance accountability. The 

Department is implementing a five-year programmatic and planning framework to 

provide an unprecedented opportunity to consider future impacts in determining 

this year’s funding priorities. This budget was formulated to deliver measurable results to reach the Department’s strategic goals. This achievement is a significant 

step toward reaching my key goal to focus DOE activities to adhere to the primary 

mission of national security. By streamlining program activities and management 

structures, the Department of Energy will more effectively and efficiently manage 

and produce the results expected by American taxpayers. 

PRESIDENT’S MANAGEMENT AGENDA AND NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY COORDINATION

Rising to the challenge of the President’s Management Agenda, the Department 

is beginning to improve how it manages, budgets, and plans for all programs, 

projects, and activities. By improving management, performance, and accountability, 

the Department is striving for a level of performance that keeps DOE programs 

safe, on track, and on budget. A system of scorecards is being used to evaluate the 

effectiveness of various programs and allocate resources to achieve this end. Performance measures are improving to ensure that they are specific, quantifiable, concise, comprehensive, and relevant to the American taxpayer. Also, in accordance 

with the President’s commitment to an expanded and effective electronic government, DOE is centrally managing information technology investments to reduce 

waste, increase productivity, and provide increased corporate services at lower cost. 

Research and Development Investment Criteria.—The President’s Management 

Agenda calls for consistent and sufficient evaluation of future research and development (R&D) investments and past performance. In response, the Department developed internal guidance for programs to score their R&D activities against the Administration’s applied R&D investment criteria. This approach focuses R&D dollars 

on long-term, potentially high-payoff activities that require Federal involvement to 

be both successful and achieve public benefit. The Department will continue to work 

to develop consistent scoring and benefit estimation methods, to permit comparison 

of applied R&D programs across the Department. 

The applied R&D scorecard process is an important way the Department is integrating performance into the budget. The scorecard process is in its second year of 

development. The goal is to develop highly analytical justifications for applied research portfolios in future budgets. This will require the development and application of a uniform cost and benefit evaluation methodology across programs to allow 

meaningful program comparisons. 

The Department’s Science programs also participate in the government-wide effort 

to evaluate basic research efforts against the criteria of quality, relevance, and performance. As part of this first year effort for basic research programs, the Office of 

Science has incorporated the principles of the investment criteria into the formulation of its Congressional budget narrative. 

Program Assessment Rating Tool.—In addition to the use of R&D investment criteria, the Department implemented a new tool to evaluate the management effectiveness of selected programs. The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide a standardized 

way to assess the effectiveness of the Federal Government’s portfolio of programs. 

While OMB’s objective for fiscal year 2004 was to evaluate 20 percent of each government agency, the Department of Energy reviewed nearly 60 percent of its activities through the PART process. The Departmental elements that participated were 

Environmental Management, Science, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Power Marketing Administrations, and the National Nuclear Security Administration. 
113

The structured framework of the PART provides a means through which programs can assess their activities differently than through traditional reviews. While 

some of the programs received less than favorable scores, the information exchange 

between the Department and OMB proved quite valuable. The current focus is to 

establish outcome- and output-oriented goals, the successful completion of which will 

lead to benefits to the public, such as increased national security and energy security, and improved environmental conditions. The Department will incorporate feedback from OMB into the fiscal year 2005 Budget and planning process, and will take 

the necessary steps to continue to improve performance. The results of the review 

are reflected in the Department’s fiscal year 2004 Budget. The refocusing of the Fossil Energy Oil and Gas program was supported by the results of the PART review. 

National Energy Policy Office.—The Department of Energy has established a National Energy Policy Office to provide strategic direction within DOE and overall coordination within the Federal Government with respect to implementing national 

energy plan recommendations and activities to assure dependable, affordable, and 

environmentally responsible production, delivery, and use of energy. This Office’s 

mission is to achieve measurable performance results and consistency in implementing our national energy goals through effective policy development, planning 

and management strategies that are integrated into DOE’s budgeting process and 

that foster interagency and intergovernmental coordination, generate public-private 

collaboration, and enhance international cooperation. Through such coordination 

and integrated policy planning and budgeting, the Office will assure performance results that advance and safeguard our national energy security objectives by assuring 

access to reliable and affordable energy supplies through a balanced and diversified 

portfolio of energy sources and modernization of energy infrastructure; securing continuous improvement in energy efficiency and conservation through technology research development and deployment to manage effectively and extend our energy 

resources, reduce demand and lower costs; assuring environmental progress and 

sustainable growth; and assuring that a robust market guides pricing, technology 

deployment, energy efficiency, fuel selection and energy systems. 

INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATION BUDGET REQUEST

I would now like to address some of the specifics of our fiscal year 2004 Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations request. 

In total for fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $1.7 billion. This amount is $76.7 

million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003. By appropriation, we are requesting $519.3 million for Fossil Energy Research and Development; $16.5 million for 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves; $36.0 million for the 6th payment in the 

Elk Hills School Lands Fund; $875.8 million for Energy Conservation; $1.0 million 

for Economic Regulation; $175.1 million for Strategic Petroleum Reserve; $5.0 million for the Northeast Home Heating Reserve; and $80.1 million for the Energy Information Administration. In addition, fiscal year 2003 appropriations action advance appropriated $36.0 million for the 5th payment in the Elk Hills School Lands 

Fund and deferred $87.0 million of Clean Coal Technology balances into fiscal year 

2004. This brings the fiscal year 2004 total to $1.8 billion. 

I would now like to address some specifics of the Fossil Energy, Energy Conservation, and Energy Information Administration budget requests. 

FOSSIL ENERGY BUDGET REQUEST

Mr. Chairman, when he took over as Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy last 

year, I asked Assistant Secretary Mike Smith to realign the Fossil Energy program 

to focus virtually and exclusively on supporting three of the President’s top energy 

and environmental initiatives: Clear Skies, Climate Change, and Energy Security. 

To be included in the fiscal year 2004 Budget, Fossil Energy programs must either support the development of lower cost, more effective pollution control technologies or help diversify the Nation’s future sources of clean-burning natural gas 

to meet the President’s Clear Skies goals; expand the Nation’s technological options 

for reducing greenhouse gases either by increasing power plant efficiencies or by 

capturing and isolating these gases from the atmosphere; or measurably add to the 

Nation’s energy security by providing a short-term emergency response (e.g., Strategic Petroleum Reserve) or a longer-term alternative to imported oil (e.g., hydrogen 

and methane hydrates). 

President’s Coal Research Initiative.—The fiscal year 2004 Budget continues to 

meet the President’s commitment to spend $2 billion on clean coal research over 10 

years by providing $320.5 million for the President’s Coal Research Initiative. Since 

our budget testimony last year, the Department has made significant progress on 

a new generation of environmentally-clean coal technologies. 
114

Our ‘‘first round’’ solicitation in the Clean Coal Power Initiative—the centerpiece 

of the President’s clean coal commitment—attracted three dozen proposals for 

projects totaling more than $5 billion. On January 15, 2003, we announced the first 

winners of this competition—eight projects with a total value of more than $1.3 billion, more than one billion dollars of which would be provided by the private sector. 

Industry has again stepped up to the table, offering both good ideas and significant 

private sector cost-sharing. In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $130.0 million as the next ‘‘installment’’ of 

the Clean Coal Power Initiative. At the present time, our plans are to issue competitive solicitations every 2 years—the next one in the fall of 2004. As in the initial 

solicitation, we propose to combine 2 years of appropriations (and any available 

funds from prior solicitations) because of the size and scope of the projects. 

The President’s Clean Coal Power Initiative is especially significant because it directly supports the President’s Clear Skies initiative. The first projects, for example, 

included an array of new cleaner and cheaper concepts for reducing sulfur dioxide, 

nitrogen oxides, and mercury—the three air pollutants targeted by the Clear Skies 

initiative. To ensure that even more effective pollution control concepts continue to 

emerge as candidates for future clean coal competitions, we are also requesting 

$22.0 million for research into even cleaner and more affordable innovations for existing plants. 

Several of the recently-selected Clean Coal projects also help expand the menu of 

options for meeting the President’s climate change goal of an 18 percent reduction 

in greenhouse gas intensity (carbon equivalent per GDP) by 2012, primarily by 

boosting the efficiencies of power plants (meaning that less fuel is needed to generate electricity with a corresponding reduction in greenhouse gases). To position 

even more advanced, high efficiency power generating concepts for future development and testing, we are requesting $64.0 million to continue research into integrated gasification-combined cycle and a companion effort in high-performance, 

multi-fuel-capable turbines. A key aspect of these advanced power concepts—which 

will make up key modules of our ‘‘Vision 21’’ emission-free power plant of the future—is that they emit carbon dioxide in a way that makes the greenhouse gas easier to capture. 

Carbon management will become an increasingly important element of our coal 

research program. Carbon sequestration—the capture and permanent storage of carbon dioxide—has emerged as one of our highest priorities in the Fossil Energy research program—a priority reflected in the proposed budget increase to $62.0 million in fiscal year 2004 from a fiscal year 2003 appropriated level of $39.9 million. 

Carbon sequestration, if it can be proven practical, safe, and affordable, can dramatically enhance our long-term response to climate change concerns. It could offer 

the United States and other nations one approach for reducing greenhouse gases 

that would not necessitate changes in the way we produce, deliver, or use energy. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2004, one of the cornerstones of our carbon sequestration 

program will be a national network of regional partnerships. This Secretarial initiative, which I announced in November, will bring together the Federal Government, 

state agencies, universities, and private industry to begin determining which options 

for capturing and storing greenhouse gases are most practicable for specific areas 

of the country. We hope to start at least five of these partnerships in fiscal year 

2004. 

Our sequestration budget also includes support for the President’s National Climate Change Technology Initiative Competitive Solicitation program. Funding from 

the Fossil Energy program will be combined with funding from the Office of Nuclear 

Energy, Science and Technology and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy to competitively fund technology R&D with the greatest potential to reduce, 

avoid, or sequester gas emissions. 

Another aspect of the President’s Coal Research Initiative is the production of 

clean fuels from coal. Hydrogen has emerged as a major priority within the Administration and the Department of Energy as a clean fuel for tomorrow’s advanced 

power technologies (such as fuel cells) and for future transportation systems. Within 

the Fossil Energy program, we have allocated $5.0 million for research into new 

methods for making hydrogen from coal. 

To provide fundamental scientific knowledge that benefits all of our coal technology efforts, our fiscal year 2004 Budget also includes $37.5 million for advanced 

research in such areas as materials, coal utilization science, analytical efforts, and 

support for coal research at universities (including historically black and other minority institutions). 

Other Power Systems Research and Development.—We are also proposing $47.0 

million for continued development of fuel cells with an emphasis on lower-cost technologies that can contribute to both Clear Skies emission reductions, particularly in 
115

distributed generation applications, and Climate Change goals by providing an 

ultra-high efficiency electricity-generating component for tomorrow’s power plants. 

Distributed power systems, such as fuel cells, also can contribute to the overall reliability of electricity supplies in the United States and help strengthen the security 

of our energy infrastructure. 

Natural Gas Research.—The President’s Clear Skies Initiative also provides the rationale for much of the Department’s $26.6 million budget request for natural gas 

research. Clear Skies legislation is likely to further increase demand for this cleanburning fuel; even in the absence of new environmental requirements, natural gas 

use in the United States is likely to increase by 50 percent by 2020. 

Our natural gas research program, therefore, is directed primarily at providing 

new tools and technologies that producers can use to diversify future supplies of gas. 

Emphasis will be increased on research that can improve access to onshore public 

lands, especially in the Rocky Mountain region where much of our undiscovered gas 

resource is located. A particularly important aspect of this research will be to develop innovative ways to recover this resource while continuing to protect the environmental quality of these areas. 

We also plan to establish a new industry-led, university consortia-based program 

to develop breakthrough technologies that can help assure a continued supply of affordable natural gas beyond 2015. The focus of this program will be on projects that 

could revolutionize the way natural gas is supplied in the United States—a focus 

that is well beyond the type of research industry is now doing. 

Natural gas storage will also assume increasing significance in the United States 

as more and more power plants require consistent, year-round supplies of natural 

gas. Toward this end, we will initiate a nationwide, industry-led consortium that 

will examine ways to improve the reliability and efficiency of our Nation’s gas storage system and explore opportunities for LNG facility sitting. 

The most significant change in our Natural Gas Research program is the new 

work we are proposing in hydrogen. In keeping with our energy security goal of 

finding alternatives to traditional transportation fuels, we are proposing to spend 

$6.6 million to study innovative methods to produce hydrogen from natural gas. We 

will ask industry, academia, and our national laboratories to submit new ideas on 

hydrogen production and related research. Since the byproduct of gas-to-hydrogen 

processes will likely be carbon dioxide, this effort will also include research on ways 

to capture this greenhouse gas. This work will be closely coordinated with other efforts in the Office of Fossil Energy to capture and sequester carbon dioxide. 

Over the long-term, the production of natural gas from hydrates could have major 

energy security implications. Hydrates—gas-bearing, ice-like formations in Alaska 

and offshore—contain more energy than all other fossil energy resources. Hydrate 

production, if it can be proved technically and economically feasible, has the potential to shift the world energy balance away from insecure sources of supply. Understanding hydrates can also improve our knowledge of the science of greenhouse 

gases and possibly offer future mechanisms for sequestering carbon dioxide. For 

these reasons, we are continuing a research program to study gas hydrates with a 

proposed funding level of $3.5 million. 

Oil Technology Development.—The President’s National Energy Plan calls attention to the continued need to strengthen our Nation’s energy security by promoting 

enhanced oil (and gas) recovery and improving oil (and gas) exploration technology 

through continued partnerships with public and private entities. 

At the same time, however, we recognize that if the Federal oil technology R&D 

program is to produce beneficial results, it must be more tightly focused than in 

prior years. Consequently, our fiscal year 2004 Budget request of $15.0 million reflects a reorientation of the program toward those areas where there is clearly a national benefit rather than solely a corporate benefit. 

One example is the use of carbon dioxide (CO2) injection to enhance the recovery 

of oil from existing fields. CO2 injection is a proven enhanced oil recovery practice 

that prolongs the life of some mature fields, but the private sector has not applied 

this technique to its fullest potential due to insufficient supplies of economical CO2. 

A key Federal role to be carried out in our proposed fiscal year 2004 program will 

be to facilitate the greater use of this oil recovery process by integrating it with CO2

captured and delivered from fossil fuel power plants. 

We will also refocus much of our Oil Technology program on a new Domestic Resource Conservation effort that will target partnerships with industry and universities to sustain access to marginal wells and reservoirs. These aging fields account 

for 40 percent of our domestic production, yet contain billions of barrels of oil that 

might still be recovered with ever-improving technology. A high priority effort in fiscal year 2004 will be to develop ‘‘micro-hole’’ technology. Rather than developing just 

another new drilling tool, the Federal program will integrate ‘‘smart’’ drilling sys-
116

tems, advanced imaging, and enhanced recovery technologies into a complete exploration and production system. Micro-hole systems may offer one of our best opportunities for keeping marginal fields active because the smaller-diameter wells can significantly reduce exploration costs and make new drilling between existing wells 

(‘‘infill’’ drilling) more affordable. Using breakthrough technology like this to keep 

marginal fields in production preserves the opportunity to eventually apply even 

more advanced innovations that could recover even larger quantities of domestic 

crude that traditional oil recovery methods currently leave behind. 

Other Fossil Energy R&D.—Our budget also includes $124.3 million for other activities in our Fossil Energy program, including $92.8 million for headquarters and 

field office salaries, $3.0 million for plant and capital improvements, $9.7 million for 

environmental restoration, $6.0 million for Federal matching funds for cooperative 

research and development projects at the University of North Dakota and the Western Research Institute, $2.8 million for electricity and natural gas import/export responsibilities, and $10.0 million for advanced metallurgical research at our Albany 

Research Center. The increase in funding at the Albany Center (up from $6.0 million in fiscal year 2003) reflects the Center’s growing role in developing better materials for fuel cells and in studying new mineral carbonation concepts for carbon sequestration. 

PETROLEUM RESERVES

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve and Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve are 

key elements of our Nation’s energy security. Both serve as response tools for the 

President to use to protect U.S. citizens from disruptions in commercial energy supplies. 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve.—The President has directed us to fill the Strategic 

Petroleum Reserve to its full 700 million barrel capacity. The mechanism for doing 

this—a cooperative effort with the Minerals Management Service to exchange royalty oil from Federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico—is working well. We have been 

able to accelerate fill from an average of 60,000 barrels per day at the start of the 

President’s initiative to a planned rate of 130,000 barrels per day for deliveries beginning this month. 

Because of the President’s ‘‘royalty in kind’’ initiative, we have achieved the Reserve’s highest inventory level ever, now at 600 million barrels. Our goal remains 

to have a full inventory of 700 million barrels by the end of calendar year 2005. 

Our fiscal year 2004 Budget for the SPR is $175.1 million, all of which is now 

in our facilities development and operations account. We do not require additional 

funds in the oil acquisition account because charges for transporting ‘‘royalty in 

kind’’ oil to the SPR are now the responsibility of the oil supplier. Also, because we 

have the authority to ‘‘borrow’’ funds from other Departmental accounts to support 

an emergency SPR drawdown, we no longer require the same amount of standby 

funding in this account. This has allowed us to use $5.0 million in funds previously 

appropriated for this purpose to support a portion of our fiscal year 2004 Fossil Energy R&D budget request. 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.—We are requesting $5.0 million for the 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, a decrease of $1.0 million from the fiscal year 

2003 appropriated level. The decrease reflects cost savings realized from recompeting our commercial storage contracts. The 2-million-barrel reserve remains ready 

to respond to a Presidential order should there be a severe fuel oil supply disruption 

in the Northeast. A key element of this readiness is a new online computerized ‘‘auction’’ system that we implemented during the last year to expedite the bidding process. Installing and testing the electronic system (including tests with prospective 

commercial bidders) has been a major element of the Office of Fossil Energy’s role 

in implementing the ‘‘e-government’’ initiatives in the President’s management 

agenda. 

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.—The fiscal year 2004 Budget request 

of $16.5 million is a decrease of $1.2 million from the fiscal year 2003 appropriated 

level. The Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center (RMOTC), established at the 

Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 3 in Wyoming, will be closed, resulting in a $3 million 

per year cost savings. RMOTC is more appropriately a private sector activity. We 

also intend to transfer the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 2 in California to the Department of the Interior by the end of fiscal year 2003, although the transition and 

certain environmental compliance activities will continue into fiscal year 2004. We 

further expect to be able to reduce our funding requirements for equity redetermination studies for the Government’s portion of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve 

No. 1, which was divested in 1998. Of the four producing zones for which final eq-
117

uity shares had to be finalized, three have been completed; the fourth (the Shallow 

Oil Zone) is expected to be finished in fiscal year 2005. 

ENERGY CONSERVATION BUDGET REQUEST

For our Interior appropriation funded programs in fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $875.8 million, $16.0 million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003. 

The decrease reflects a shift in priorities among activities supported by the different 

appropriations, consistent with the Administration’s R&D investment criteria and 

PART results, as I will describe through my testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, our fiscal year 2004 Budget reflects the new organization within 

EERE. Two years ago, EERE was divided into 31 programs, in 17 offices, stovepiped 

into 5 market sectors. There were multiple overlapping layers of management and 

duplicative and inconsistent business systems that generated significant inefficiencies and made it difficult to ensure accountability. 

In response to the President’s Management Agenda, we launched a dramatic restructuring of the EERE program in April 2002. This restructuring eliminated the 

5 market sectors and 17 offices, streamlined 31 programs into 11, eliminated up to 

four management levels, and centralized administration functions into a single support organization with a focus on developing consistent, uniform, and efficient business practices. This is the most dramatic restructuring of EERE in at least 12 years 

and arguably in its history. 

The restructuring combined all the hydrogen and fuel cell activities, formerly scattered across 2 market sectors and 3 programs, into a single program for greater efficiency and synergy. It also combined all the bioenergy-related activities, formerly 

scattered across 3 market sectors and 3 programs, into a single program focused on 

advanced biorefineries. 

The fiscal year 2004 Budget is fully aligned with EERE’s new management structure and strategic goals and together they will provide greater synergy and increased efficiency and productivity in the R&D and deployment activities lead by 

EERE. 

EERE’s R&D and technology deployment efforts supported by the fiscal year 2004 

Budget will provide Americans with greater freedom of choice of technology, while 

providing increased energy security, and reducing financial costs and impacts on the 

environment. 

Mr. Chairman, the Energy Conservation budget request has been developed with 

these challenges and opportunities in mind. 

FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies.—The FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (FCVT) Program is developing more energy efficient and environmentally 

friendly highway transportation technologies to help reduce United States petroleum consumption. The long-term aim of the program is to develop ‘‘leap frog’’ technologies such as hydrogen-fueled vehicles to provide Americans with freedom of mobility along with energy security, lower costs, and lower environmental impacts. Program activities include research, development, demonstration, testing, technology 

validation, technology transfer, and education that could achieve significant improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and displacement of oil by other fuels which 

ultimately can be domestically produced in a clean and cost-competitive manner. 

In fiscal year 2004, the Department is requesting $157.6 million, a decrease of 

$19.7 million below the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level for the FreedomCAR and 

Vehicle Technologies program. The FreedomCAR portion of the budget is $91.1 million, an increase of $5.5 million above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. All 

funding for transportation fuel cell and hydrogen infrastructure activities is included in the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies program to accelerate RD&D activities to support both the FreedomCAR partnership and President’s new Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. 

Fuel Cell Technologies.—In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $77.5 million, an 

increase of $22.4 million above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level for Fuel Cell 

Technologies from Interior Appropriations. The fiscal year 2004 Budget supports 

fuel cell cost reduction and initiation of a fuel cell vehicle test and evaluation program. 

Americans currently depend on foreign sources for 55 percent of our oil-a dependence that is projected to rise to 68 percent by 2025. Since two thirds of the oil we 

consume is used for transportation, we must focus on alternative means of fueling 

transportation from domestic resources if we ever expect to reverse this trend. 

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles require no petroleum-based fuels and emit no pollutants or carbon dioxide. Their development and commercial success would remove 

personal transportation as an environmental issue and substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil 
118

The hydrogen needed to fuel these vehicles is domestically available in abundant 

quantities as a component of natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water through 

electrolysis using renewable or nuclear power. The challenge is to economically 

produce, deliver, store, and distribute hydrogen for use as a consumer fuel, and to 

engage the broader oil, energy, and power companies in this effort. To meet this 

challenge, the President’s fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes a new Hydrogen Fuel 

Initiative, a $1.2 billion effort over five years, which will accelerate research and development activities to solve technical challenges in hydrogen production, delivery, 

storage, and distribution. When the vision of the President’s Fuel Initiative is 

achieved, hydrogen will power the fuel cells that provide energy for our cars, trucks, 

homes, schools, and businesses. 

To support FreedomCAR and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, we need to make significant research and development investments to develop vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cells and the infrastructure to support them. The government will be 

to help fund and coordinate the high-risk R&D work of numerous private sector 

partners and our National network of science laboratories. Government coordination 

of this undertaking will help resolve one of the difficulties associated with development of a commercially viable hydrogen fuel cell vehicle: the ‘‘chicken and egg’’ question. Which comes first, the fuel cell vehicle or the hydrogen production and delivery-refueling infrastructure to support it? The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, 

in conjunction with the FreedomCAR partnership, answers the question by proposing to develop both in parallel; that is, to augment the already significant investments in vehicle technologies with new investments in hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. By so doing, Federal investments can help advance commercialization of 

hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure by 15 years, from 2030 to 2015. 

These efforts will enable the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles for the 

showroom floor by 2020. Success of these programs will begin to eliminate the need 

for imported oil, while simultaneously reducing emissions and greenhouse gases 

from America’s transportation fleet without affecting the freedom of personal mobility we demand. 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental Activities.—In fiscal year 2004, we are re- questing $357.0 million for Weatherization & Intergovernmental Activities, $42.5 

million more than appropriated in fiscal year 2003. 

The Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program activities support the President’s National Energy Policy recommendations for rapid deployment of clean energy technologies and energy efficient products. The program’s funding request also 

supports the President’s commitment to increase funding by $1.4 billion over 10 

years for the Weatherization Assistance Program, which improves the energy efficiency of dwellings occupied by low-income Americans. Our Weatherization Assistance Program request ($288.2 million, $64.7 million 

above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level), supports weatherization of approximately 126,000 low-income homes. Based on historical data, the program anticipates 

that low-income families will save $1.80 in energy costs for every dollar invested 

over the life of the efficiency improvements. The Weatherization Assistance Program 

was assessed using the Administration’s PART and was rated Moderately Effective. 

Our fiscal year 2004 request for other subprogram activities within the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program are as follows: State Energy Program 

Grants ($38.8 million, $5.9 million less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003), State 

Energy Activities ($2.4 million, $3.0 million less than appropriated in fiscal year 

2003), and Gateway Deployment ($27.6 million, $13.3 million less than appropriated 

in fiscal year 2003). Within Gateway Development, there are several program shifts. 

For example, to avoid duplication of efforts, funding for International Market Development activities is now requested within the International Renewable Energy Program in the Energy and Water appropriation. The National Industrial Competitiveness through Energy, Environment, and Economics (NICE3) activity is terminated 

because the activities are within industry’s capability and do not match up well 

against the Administration’s R&D investment criteria. Other activities are being refocused to ensure program performance can be meaningfully evaluated. 

Building Technologies.—EERE’s buildings technology R&D programs address 

technologies, techniques and tools to make residential and commercial buildings, 

both in existing structures and new construction, more energy efficient, productive 

and affordable. Strategies include system R&D to reduce overall residential and 

commercial building energy use, R&D focused on energy end uses such as water 

heating, food refrigeration, and clothes washing, and the development of building 

energy efficiency codes and national equipment energy efficiency standards. The 

Buildings program was assessed using the PART and was rated Adequate. Recommendations included refocusing R&D funding on long-term, high-risk, potentially 

high-payoff activities; evaluating potential duplication of Building program activities 
119

funded via the Energy and Water appropriation; and developing better performance 

measures. The request begins to address these recommendations. 

Our fiscal year 2004 Budget for the Interior-funded portion of the Building Technologies program is $52.6 million, $6.8 million less than appropriated in fiscal year 

2003. The funding supports a portfolio of activities that includes solid-state lighting, 

energy efficiency improvement of other building components and equipment, and 

their effective integration using whole-building-system-design techniques, as well as 

the development of codes and standards. 

Emerging Technologies R&D.—In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $21.8 million to conduct building components and equipment R&D. This amount is $9.4 million below the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. The request reflects a redirection 

of near-term, low risk R&D in space conditioning and appliances to longer-term, 

higher-risk activities with a greater potential public benefits. For example, we are 

proposing a $5 million investment to expand our Solid State Lighting research activities. Solid State Lighting represents a promising, new approach to efficient lighting systems. Our Solid State Lighting research will create the technical foundation 

to revolutionize the energy efficiency, appearance, visual comfort, and quality of 

lighting products by achieving efficiencies upwards of 70 percent (source efficiency). 

Residential Buildings and Zero Energy Buildings R&D.—The fiscal year 2004 

Budget is $15.2 million, an increase of $2.9 million from the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. The Department will pursue systems research on five promising technology areas, enhance activities to apply practices and approaches developed 

through Building America to existing residential buildings. 

Equipment Standards and Analysis Program.—We are requesting $9.0 million, 

compared with $9.6 million in our fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. The Department will continue the development of equipment test procedures and standards. 

We will be completing analyses that will add new products to the lighting and appliance standards program. 

Industrial Technologies.—The Industrial Technologies program partners with energy-intensive industries to develop and apply advanced technologies and practices 

that reduce industry’s energy consumption and improve environmental performance. 

In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $24.0 million, compared with the $62.1 million appropriated in fiscal year 2003, for the Industries of the Future (IOF) (Specific) programmatic area. The request reflects a determination that the program 

supports some activities for which the private sector has sufficient incentive to pursue without Federal support. The Department has re-focused its R&D efforts to 

higher priority technologies within the EERE portfolio, including hydrogen and advanced fuel cell technologies. The activities that continue in the IOF (Specific) programmatic area will focus on bringing existing projects to successful commercialization and pursuing longer-term, higher-risk activities with significant potential public benefits that industry would not undertake alone. We are also requesting $34.4 

million, $2.1 less than appropriated in fiscal year 2003, for the IOF (Crosscutting) 

programmatic area, which includes Industrial Materials of the Future ($13.6 million); High Efficiency Combustion Systems ($2.0 million); Sensors and Control Technology ($3.8 million); and Industrial Technical Assistance ($14.8 million). 

Biomass.—For the first time we have brought a diverse industry together and produced a vision and R&D roadmap that has increased the level of industry investment. This roadmap has allowed us to begin the process of rebuilding the program 

and focusing on the most promising long-term opportunities for these technologies. 

We have improved our collaboration with other Federal agencies, especially the Department of Agriculture (USDA). In addition, the Farm Bill provided direction and 

mandatory funding to USDA to work with DOE in advancing biomass technologies. 

Our fiscal year 2004 request for Interior-funded portion of the biomass program is 

$8.8 million, compared with $24.6 million appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The request supports continuing R&D on the thermochemical and bioconversion process, 

and evaluating opportunities for the production of fuels and chemicals from intermediates (‘‘platforms’’) such as sugars from biomass and starch crops, synthesis gas 

from biomass gasification, and biomass oils. The request terminates black liquor 

gasification activities, which do not align well with the R&D investment criteria, as 

sufficient incentive exists for industry to pursue these activities alone. 

EERE bioenergy activities were integrated into one office to help focus resources 

on a limited and more coherent set of goals and objectives, increasing collaboration 

with industry, reducing overhead expenses, and exploiting synergies among similar 

activities in support of a future biorefinery industry. This focus on a clear set of 

goals, substantial leveraging of research funding with industry, and the transfer to 

industry of a number of demonstration activities that industry should continue to 

pursue without federal support is reflected in our request. 
120

Power.—Our Distributed Energy Resources Program leads a national effort to develop a flexible, smart, and secure energy system by integrating clean and efficient 

distributed energy technologies complementing the existing grid infrastructure. The 

program is supporting regional and state strategies to ensure electricity and reliability. By producing electricity where it is used, distributed energy technologies can 

increase grid asset utilization and reduce the need for upgrading some transmission 

and distribution lines. Also, because distributed generators are located near the 

point of use, they allow for the capture of the waste heat produced by fuel combustion through combined heat and power (CHP) systems. In fiscal year 2004, we are 

requesting $51.8 million, compared with $61.1 million appropriated in fiscal year 

2003. The program is following an RD&D model, similar to Advanced Turbine Systems subprogram, completed in fiscal year 1999, in pursuing activities in microturbines, reciprocating engines, thermally activated devices and other areas. The program expects to meet the performance milestones for efficiency, environmental emissions and cost effectiveness for microturbines and reciprocating engines through 

cost-shared RD&D and down selecting among several different approaches. 

Federal Sector.—The Federal Government is the Nation’s single largest energy 

consumer. It uses almost one quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) of energy annually, or about 1 percent of the Nation’s energy use. In fiscal year 2000, the Federal Government spent about $4 billion in energy to heat, cool, light, and conduct 

operations in 500,000 buildings. Simply by using existing energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies and techniques, the Federal Government can begin to 

lead the Nation toward becoming a cleaner, more efficient energy consumer. In fiscal year 2004, we are requesting $20.0 million for the Federal Energy Management 

Program to continue meeting the goals of reducing Federal energy consumption. 

Program Management.—The Energy Conservation Program Management budget 

component provides executive and technical direction, information, analysis, and 

oversight required for efficient and productive implementation of those programs 

funded by Energy Conservation appropriations in EERE. In addition, Program Management supports all Headquarters staff, six Regional Offices, the Golden Field Office in Colorado and several DOE employees at three Operations Offices to plan and 

implement EERE activities as well as facilitate delivery of applied R&D and grant 

programs to federal, regional, State, and local customers. In fiscal year 2004, we are 

requesting $76.7 million for these activities, which is fairly level with the fiscal year 

2003 appropriated level. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION BUDGET REQUEST

For the Energy Information Administration (EIA), we are requesting $80.1 million, the same level as appropriated in fiscal year 2003. The requested funding will 

be used for ongoing data and analysis activities and critical data quality enhancements, so EIA can continue to disseminate accurate and reliable energy information 

and analyses to inform energy policy-makers. EIA’s base program includes the 

maintenance of a comprehensive energy database, the dissemination of energy data 

and analyses to a wide variety of customers in the public and private sectors 

through the National Energy Information Center, and the maintenance of modeling 

systems for both near- and mid-term energy market analysis and forecasting. 

In fiscal year 2004, EIA’s priority is to maintain high-quality core energy data 

programs and forecasting systems needed to provide timely data, analysis, and forecasts. EIA will complete the update and overhaul of its consumption surveys. EIA 

will continue to overhaul the electricity surveys and data systems to accommodate 

changes in the deregulated energy industry and improve data quality and accuracy 

in the petroleum, natural gas, and electricity areas. 

EIA continues to aggressively expand the availability of electronic information 

and upgrade energy data dissemination, particularly on the EIA Web site. The increased use of electronic technology for energy data dissemination has led to an explosive growth in the number of its data customers and the breadth of their interests, as well as an increase in the depth of the information distributed. During fiscal 

year 1997, EIA established a goal to increase the number of users of its Web site 

by 20 percent annually. In each of the succeeding years EIA has managed to either 

meet or exceed this commitment, with a 39 percent increase in fiscal year 2002 

while delivering more than 2,400 gigabytes of information. 

EIA also has increased dramatically the distribution of its information by becoming the dependable source of objective energy information for the news media. By 

using this distribution channel EIA has ensured its energy data to be widely seen 

and used by the general public at minimal additional cost to the Federal Government. 
121

In May 2002, on short notice, and with no new budget resources, EIA, at my direction, began operation of a new weekly survey of natural gas in underground storage after the American Gas Association stopped operation of its weekly survey. This 

survey is the Nation’s only weekly gas supply data and is crucial to decisions of supply planners in industry and utilities as well as to analysts assessing the current 

natural gas supply and demand situation, especially prior to the winter heating season. 

EIA culminated a three-year effort to revise its electric power data collection 

forms with a new set of surveys. The new surveys will collect information necessary 

to understand and evaluate many of the changes that have occurred in the electric 

power industry due to restructuring and retail competition by collecting additional 

information from the growing percentage of nonutility generators. EIA added to its 

E-Government initiatives by incorporating Internet data collection with this set of 

surveys. 

In the area of improving data quality, EIA has reprocessed twelve years of electricity data from nonutility generators and has revised its Annual Energy Review 

to present this data according to industry conventions, moving nonutility power producers’ consumption from the industrial sector to the electric power sector. The revised data uses natural gas consumption supplied by nonutility electric generators 

in place of natural gas pipeline deliveries, providing a better representation of natural gas consumption. These revisions will be extended to other EIA publications 

this year. 

With increasing frequency, EIA has been requested by the Administration and 

Congress to produce comprehensive service reports that analyze current energy 

issues of major importance. The number and sophistication of these analytical requests have grown, often requiring EIA to postpone work on vital quality assurance 

activities, and requiring negotiation with the requestor on delivery dates and the 

scope of the study and final report. As in past years, EIA fulfilled several requests 

for special studies and investigations for the Administration and Congress. During 

fiscal year 2002, EIA expended nearly $2 million in resources to complete the 93 

special reports and analyses during the fiscal year. In particular, EIA was asked 

by several Members of Congress to evaluate the impact of several provisions of the 

proposed House and Senate Energy Bills on energy demand, supply, prices, and on 

the economy. These analyses were often referred to Congressional floor debates and 

many were cited in revision to the proposed Senate bill. If this level of demand continues, EIA is expected to exceed $2 million in fiscal year 2004 to fulfill these requests for analyses and reports on topical energy issues. 

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared 

statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We have been joined 

by the ranking member, and former chairman of the full committee, Senator Byrd this morning. Senator Byrd, if you have a 

statement, we would entertain that at this time. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

Senator BYRD. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank 

you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing today so that the members of this subcommittee have an 

opportunity to review and discuss the administration’s fiscal year 

2004 budget request for the Office of Fossil Energy, the Office of 

Energy Efficiency, the Energy Information Agency, and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I appreciate your willingness to ensure 

the Secretary’s appearance this morning. He’s kind of hard to get 

hold of, but you brought him in. You are from the west, and when 

you go after them, you get them, right? 

Senator BURNS. I wish I could say that about my fishing. 

Senator BYRD. Much of the $1.7 billion appropriated to the Energy Department through the Interior bill is directed towards research and development activities. These programs, particularly 

the fossil energy programs, are the linchpin to ensuring our Nation’s energy security. Mr. Chairman, 52 percent of the electricity 
122

generated in this country comes from a coal-fired power plant, and 

close to 100 percent of our transportation comes from oil and natural gas. Obviously, the importance of fossil fuels to our national 

and economic security cannot be overstated. 

Yet despite those facts and contrary to all the rhetoric that we 

hear coming from this administration, what is being proposed for 

the Office of Fossil Energy is simply disastrous. This budget cuts 

coal research 10 percent below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. 

It cuts natural gas research and development by 43 percent. It cuts 

oil research and development by 64 percent. And it would put 150 

of the brightest fossil energy scientists out of work at the very moment we should be redoubling our efforts to find resources in an 

environmentally sound manner. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you throughout 

the appropriations process to see what can be done to rectify these 

shortsighted and negative proposals. I know that resources will be 

particularly tight for fiscal year 2004, but this budget request cannot be adopted in its present form without doing serious damage 

to our Nation’s energy security efforts. I would urge you and all the 

members of the subcommittee to resist going down that path. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator. 

We discussed this when the Secretary was in my office, and we’re 

going to find a way to get the job done the way it should be done. 

I’m always amazed at the mindset of some folks. The majority of 

our oil and gas is found on public lands. Yet, we vote every day to 

take those lands and those areas where that resource is found completely off the board when it comes time to inventory what we have 

in the event that we need them. So this thinking on oil and gas 

runs counter to some ideas here on the Hill of what we should be 

using. 

We spend a lot of money every year on the Strategic Petroleum 

Reserve, and send millions of barrels of oil down there, we simply 

buy it and put it in the ground. That’s a cost to the taxpayer. The 

taxpayer is paying nothing for the natural reserves that we find on 

some of our outer continental shelf and our public lands. It is already there because Mother Nature stores it, but we are denied the 

right to inventory it and recover it, if it has to be recovered. 

About 2 weeks ago we had the opportunity to drive the fuel cell 

automobiles that General Motors had out here. I will tell you that 

looking at the numbers, and looking at the work that’s being done, 

we are closer to a hydrogen society than we think we are. The work 

that’s being done in hydrogen fuel cells is starting to see some results. So I’m very encouraged about that. Also the Secretary and 

I think there is a great possibility with Future-Gen. 

We have tons and tons of coal, and we should not back off in 

working on the technology to make it more feasible, to make it 

more acceptable to the environment, and to look at this great product we have because it is a source of the cheapest power that we 

produce today other than hydro. Hydro is the only one that can 

come close to that. So, Mr. Secretary, we talked a little bit about 

Future-Gen and its proposals, we look forward to working with you 

on that, and of course we also have some very distinct ideas on 
123

where it should be located, but nonetheless I think it is a bold step 

as far as our concerns. 

In the area of conservation, I believe you are aware of the solidstate lighting initiative which this subcommittee supported with an 

appropriation of around $3 million last year. You have requested 

$5 million for this program and there is significant promises that 

lay ahead in solid-state lighting and we’ve been a witness to a lot 

of that research and development. I understand the Department 

has investigated and calculated these potential benefits while developing a road map for the solid-state lighting program. Would 

you want to share with the committee your conclusions or have you 

drawn any conclusions, or where are you in that particular program? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Well, I think, Mr. Chairman that the conclusions we have to this point is we believe it is possible to produce 

higher quality lighting using advanced solid-state technology that 

could produce a 70 percent improvement over the best fluorescent 

lighting today. We are seeking about a 21 percent increase in the 

lighting R&D budget from what we had submitted in 2003, in part 

to accommodate an increase in next-generation solid-state lighting. 

So you know, I think the percentage of total electricity used in 

this country that’s attributed to lighting is about 22 percent of all 

of our electricity demand level, so if we can make gains in efficiency or breakthroughs in this area, it has a much broader application than a lot of the other things in which we do research. So 

I think we are exploring creating a more formal public/private kind 

of partnership and try to focus more on this issue. And I know that 

in the energy bill, this has come up as an area in which the Congress will want to take a lead in setting out a formalized process 

for this and it is an area where real potential exists. 

Senator BURNS. For the information of the committee, we are 

talking about the use of fiber optics for the purpose of lighting. 

Senator, this can even be done through your drapes. They can 

change the tone of light and the amount of light. The folks who 

work what they call the midnight shift now, but in your day we 

worked graveyard, if you remember. 

Senator BYRD. The hoot owl. 

Senator BURNS. The hoot owls. They can now make lighting in 

a plant to simulate a morning light, noon light, and an afternoon 

light, even though it’s dark outside. It’s a marvelous breakthrough. 

There is a consortium of manufacturers who have come together to 

support this lighting initiative. It’s just like the Secretary says, 

when you talk about the possibility of a 70 percent savings in lighting costs alone in this country, you’re talking about a big chunk of 

conservation. I really hope that the Department of Energy will take 

a closer look. 

According to the budget justification, a rather small off-highway 

vehicle R&D program is being terminated because other research 

opportunities have higher impact on energy savings. In looking at 

the Department’s own R&D road map off-highway, however, I find 

that off-highway uses account for 20 percent of the fuel used in the 

transportation sector. That is a huge amount and I don’t think 

there are a lot of people that understand how much off-highway 

fuel is used in this country. Can you reconcile these figures with 
124

the energy use and the emissions with your decision to terminate 

a $3.5 million program? 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE R&D PROGRAM TERMINATION

Secretary ABRAHAM. As I understand, the principal focus of the 

work that has been done has been related to railroad applications, 

and I think in that area the amount of actual demand or the use 

of oil is pretty small compared to the daily total consumption of the 

country, which is about a quarter-million barrels a day out of 12 

million barrels a day of imports alone. So in terms of the priority 

somebody has to set when somebody sets a budget, we looked at 

that percentage versus the percentage that goes to the rest of the 

transportation sector and made the judgment that even if we were 

highly successful in the improvement of R&D in this area that it 

wouldn’t have in terms of application that big of an effect, and I 

think that’s the basis of that conclusion that you read. 

GASOLINE PRICES

Senator BURNS. I think even though we’re going into the vacation 

season gasoline prices are on everybody’s mind. We saw the spike 

in February, and it’s settled down to around $27 or $28 a barrel 

now. They tell me the domestic supplies are lower, our domestic 

production keeps going down. OPEC made an announcement the 

other day that they were going to watch their supplies. Can you 

give us an update on these fluctuating oil prices? And have you 

drawn any conclusions about what we should be doing about them? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Let me talk about the sense of the market 

for a minute and then what we should be doing. On the market 

itself, there is no question that we went through a period here over 

the last 4 or 5 months that was sort of the perfect storm in terms 

of problems. Just an incredible combination of events happened in 

a very short period of time. One of them was the strike in Venezuela, which took about 3 million barrels of production out for a 

very long time, and much of the Venezuelan oil comes to the 

United States, that’s one of our major supply sources. We also had 

a cold winter which made the demand go up during the winter 

heating season. We had in Nigeria a period of civil unrest that 

threatened some of the employees that worked in the oil sector 

there and they pulled people out of the fields and caused production in Nigeria to drop for a period. And we had the period leading 

up to the war in Iraq, we had the war, and since its beginning of 

course and even today, the production from Iraq was essentially 

halted. So this was a pretty amazing period of events. 

In one sense we saw some spikes in the market and you referred 

to them, we saw the market go from the mid-20s to even a little 

bit higher, to spike up into the high–30s for a brief period of time 

right before the war, I think the top limit it hit was $39.99 a barrel. And it has now come down and is stabilizing in the mid-to 

high–20 range. We would like probably less of that, to see, you 

know, obviously less of that volatility. 

On the other hand, if you compare this period to three similar 

periods in which a lot of international crises were taking place, 

from the last 30 years, the spike was substantially lower. In 1973 

during the oil embargo that took place, prices spiked four-fold. In 
125

the 1979–80 period during the revolution in Iran, prices more than 

doubled. From the Persian Gulf War in 1990, 1991, prices doubled. 

But here they went up for a shorter period of time and by a much 

smaller amount. 

As a consequence, we have seen gasoline prices, the projection for 

gasoline prices for the summer based on our energy administration 

reduced substantially. At one point we were pointing to a summerlong average of almost $1.70 a gallon, and now it’s $1.46 a gallon. 

We would like to see gasoline prices lower than that, but that’s 

comparable or lower than two of the last three seasons, so in that 

sense we are a little more optimistic today than we would have 

been just 1 or 2 months ago. 

What we would like to do in the long term is much more important, and I think the subcommittee cares how we address this. 

One, the chairman has talked about with me and talked publicly 

at some length about the need to diversify our international source 

of supply. 

Senator Byrd makes a good point. We will try to get our national 

labs focused on this challenge. 

So to complete the thought I was on before, Senator, the issue 

you have raised on a number of occasions about the diversification 

of where we have energy partnerships is important and Russia is 

one area I know you’re interested in, and is one focus of our attention as well. Last year we hosted a summit between Russian energy companies and American energy companies, tried to bring 

them together to create an opportunity for people to become familiar with new project opportunities in Russia and the Caspian region generally. There is a lot of infrastructure that needs to be 

built in order for those resources to become available to the world 

market, but we see that as an opportunity. We see in Africa as well 

as our own hemisphere areas where greater production is possible. 

That’s one part of the solution. 

A second part of the solution is the need to proceed producing 

more here at home, and the debate the Senate last had on the war 

and other production issues is critical to that. 

Finally, we try to look ahead, how can we reduce our dependence 

on foreign oil, and that’s really the reason that the hydrogen proposal that we’re talking about this morning, we see it as a way to 

address both the dependence on imports on the one hand and the 

environmental issues that relate to internal combustion engines on 

the other. And we are very confident that the research we’re proposing and would be carried out with Congress’s support to develop 

not just a fuel cell operating vehicle but the infrastructure to support it has the potential by 2020 to produce the capability to literally be operated on hydrogen fuel cells. The source of the hydrogen could be domestic in nature and it would change the game 

completely in terms of the dependence issue on the one hand and 

the issue of the environmental concerns on the other. 

The one thing I always point out to people is that these issues 

keep coming up. Every time there is a spike in energy prices, we 

all look for answers and then when the prices go back down it 

seems that the people sort of forget about it for a while and yet, 

the cycle continues. And whether it’s a series of issues like the ones 

we have had this year or others, it’s going to keep going in that 
126

sort of pattern until we get past this debate if we are successful, 

which I think we can be on, the hydrogen fuel cell initiative. 

Senator BURNS. Senator, do you have a statement? I was going 

to go to Senator Byrd for his questions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

Senator DOMENICI. I have a brief statement. First, I want to 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome the Secretary. It’s good to 

have you here and great to be with you again. I am interested in 

the President’s budget for fossil energy R&D and energy conservation programs of the Department, and related programs. It has 

been 2 years since President Bush submitted his comprehensive energy plan, and we renewed our commitment to passing a comprehensive energy act. I look forward to Senate action on Senate 

bill 14, which is pending on the calendar, and I thank you for the 

help you gave us in preparing that bill. 

I also thank Senator Byrd and his staff and others for the significant help they gave us for preparing the coal provisions of that bill, 

which we think are mighty powerful for America’s future. I believe 

the programs under the jurisdiction of the Interior Subcommittee 

are critical to our Nation’s future. The administration’s proposal to 

develop a hydrogen-powered car through the FreedomCAR and 

FreedomFuel initiatives with about $1.5 billion spread over the 

next 5 years hold significant promise for the future and again, Senator Byrd, we will find provisions for that in Senate bill 14 as a 

part of a Senate and congressional policy, with some changes. 

The Clean Coal Power Initiative and the Coal Research and 

Technology Initiative in which DOE proposes to invest $2 billion 

over 10 years focuses on our most abundant energy resource. Coal 

is necessarily part of our energy future, and we want it to be clean 

coal. Investments in more efficient energy technologies for industry, 

the building sectors, and transportation have big payoffs for the 

country. 

Conservation is an important component of our energy security. 

The administration plans to double the funding for weatherization 

assistance over 10 years will greatly advanced this goal. 

There are many good initiatives in the President’s budget, and 

most necessarily come at the expense of our ongoing programs. You 

know of my concern, Mr. Secretary, over the repeat of the administration proposals to significantly reduce our investments in oil and 

gas technologies. These are not big programs but over a number of 

years they have contributed significantly to new technology by 

which we are discovering oil and gas underground. The budget proposes funding oil at 65 percent below the currently enacted level 

and gas by 44 percent below the enacted level. Those are the funding levels. 

Congress has traditionally restored funding to these programs 

and I suspect, even though the budget is tight, that we will try 

again to set our priorities in these appropriations bills. It will be 

tough for us to provide funding for all the initiatives, but we are 

up to the task, and with the ranking member understanding these 

issues as he does, I believe somehow or another we are going to 

come through with a good Presidential budget being made better 

by this subcommittee. 
127

So I join my colleagues in welcoming you, Mr. Secretary, and 

look forward to an exchange of views. Before I am finished today, 

I will cite a technology that’s going on in a little community in New 

Mexico and that I’m going to invite you to come and see. When it 

comes to the issue of clean coal, it is truly a marvel. We can’t quite 

get it exposed, but it’s something that the world should know 

about. I yield. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Byrd. 

Senator BYRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Domenici, for the good work you’re doing, and you have made 

my statement already but I’m going to make it again, because I 

know the Secretary wants to hear it. 

FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH BUDGET CUTS

Mr. Secretary, 2 years ago, the administration ignored its own 

campaign rhetoric and proposed an 18 percent cut in funding for 

fossil energy research. At that time, I remember that speech that 

the President made in West Virginia, and that’s why you’re sitting 

right here today. He made that speech in West Virginia, he was 

going to add $2 billion to fossil energy research, so here you are. 

But for that, and his outreach to the steelworkers in West Virginia, 

he wouldn’t be President and you wouldn’t be Secretary. 

So at that time, you explained away the inconsistencies between 

the rhetoric and the reality by telling us that you were new to the 

job and that you did not have complete control of the budget. You 

told us just wait a year and we would see concrete evidence that 

the administration was truly committed to the kind of research 

needed to secure our national energy security. 

Last year, the President’s budget proposed a 16 percent cut in 

the fossil energy account. You told us then, with all due respect, 

that despite its actions, the administration was indeed devoted to 

fossil energy research but that the Assistant Secretary was new to 

his job and did not have complete control of the budget. You also 

said that he was undertaking a top-to-bottom review of all fossil 

energy programs and that that policy review would drive future 

budget requests. 

Now today, here comes the Secretary before us to present a budget request which again cuts fossil energy research by 16 percent 

overall, including 13 percent from the Clean Coal program, 44 percent from natural gas research, and 58 percent from oil research. 

I think these requests constitute prima facie evidence that this administration lacks a coherent and comprehensive national energy 

plan. I can’t believe that these cuts are based on sound policy decisions. Nor do I believe that anyone can seriously argue that in a 

$2.2 trillion Federal budget, $600 million invested in research that 

will allow us to utilize our most abundant energy resources in a 

sound manner is too much. Thus, I question you, Mr. Secretary. 

Can you point to anything in your top-to-bottom policy review 

that would suggest, even suggest a need for the level of cuts that 

this administration has proposed? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Well, let me try to preface my remarks if I 

could take a little additional time on this response by saying this 

administration absolutely is committed to and is working hard on 

programs that relate to maintaining the strength of coal and/or fos-
128

sil fuels as part of our energy mix, and there should be no misunderstanding of that. 

Second, I want to also sort of talk briefly about the commitments 

we are making and the programs we are trying to launch. 

Third, I want to put in context, although just for your consideration, the chronology of how some of these budgets have been put 

together. 

Let me talk about the program, Senator. We obviously are demonstrating a greater level of commitment to putting the fossil fuel, 

and particularly the coal sector, to bring it into the 21st century 

and maintain it as a strong part of our energy mix. I base it on 

the rhetoric of people who accuse us of being far too committed to 

coal in the future. In fact, when we announced our hydrogen fuel 

vehicle program, people assailed it because they said you were 

going to burn dirty coal to create hydrogen. 

Our position is that for coal to succeed and survive and be successful, we have to address some of these environmental concerns, 

and we concluded that the carbon sequestration is a key component 

of that long-term vision for the use of coal. That’s why that program is increased by 60 percent. That’s a result of the review 

which we conducted. 

I am also convinced that we have to go beyond the laboratory 

and demonstrate to the world the capabilities that we have and the 

ability that we will have to actually operate a totally clean power 

plant, coal-based electricity generation facilities that sequesters 

100 percent of the carbon. That’s why we launched a $1 billion program in the new Future-Gen proposal which over the next decade 

and perhaps 10 or 12 years will be, I think the most ambitious new 

program in the area of fossil fuel that is being undertaken anywhere in the world. In fact, since we announced it, we have had 

many numerous nations contact us to ask if they can participate. 

Now, you have to——

Senator BYRD. Mr. Secretary, my time is limited. You are still 

cutting the budget. Now, is there anything in the policy documents 

or in the administration’s national energy policy that would convince Congress to massively scale back our national commitment to 

fossil energy research? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Let me apologize. I was taking extra time 

and I hope it won’t come off Senator Byrd’s time. 

Senator BURNS. Nothing comes off his time. 

Senator BYRD. You see what respect age brings you. I am the ancient gnome of the Capitol. 

PROGRAM ASSESSMENT RATING TOOL [PART]

Secretary ABRAHAM. Let me try to focus on that specific issue. 

First, in determination of some specific conclusions, one of the 

things which was included in the process of putting this budget together was the result of a series of analyses called PART scores, 

that analyzed various Department of Energy programs. It was a review conducted by the Office of Management and Budget, and regrettably from our point of view, the scores with respect to our natural gas and oil technology programs deemed those programs as 

currently constituted ineffective. After that process, with the programs in those areas deemed to be literally ineffective in their per-
129

formance, not every part of them, but substantial parts of them, I 

did not feel I could come to this committee or the public and say 

we are asking for large amounts of money to support programs that 

have been rated as ineffective. We are in the process of reconfiguring those test programs. 

Second, I would say to the committee if the chronology could be 

thought about, we submitted this budget before this committee and 

this Congress passed its budget, and now the comparison to what 

was the enacted level of 2003 is being used to say that we proposed 

big cuts. And granted, there were marks in the House and Senate 

at the time, but we didn’t have a final budget. We are proposing 

in R&D for fossil energy a $40 million increase over what we proposed last year. 

I would also note that we had available to us last time when we 

submitted our budget for our 2003 request, we had available advanced appropriations which we could include in that request. We 

still submitted a budget with an R&D——

FOSSIL ENERGY OMB BUDGET

Senator BYRD. Mr. Secretary, would you provide the committee 

with the fossil energy budget submission that your Department 

presented to OMB, so the committee can compare it with what the 

administration has requested? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. I don’t know if such documents are normally 

provided in this kind of setting and I would have to check on 

whether that kind of document is provided. 

Senator BYRD. What I’m trying to get at is, I’m trying to get at 

what you really told the Office of Management and Budget—I suppose Mr. Mitch Daniels is still at the helm—what you really told 

OMB you needed and what, how we can compare that with what 

the administration requested. Perhaps then we will be in a position 

to make an adjustment that will help you meet your needs. And 

that’s what the people I think want to see, they want to see careful 

handling of their money, but they also want to see research go forward so their children can be encouraged by the needs are that are 

going to confront them. Can you provide that? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Senator, I can’t recall which documents we 

have made available or would make available. That which has been 

made available in the past, I will make available. I can’t recall 

which of these sorts of submissions have ever been submitted to 

Congress. 

Senator BYRD. I can assure you that’s not the first time that 

question has been asked and I can also assure you that the Appropriations Committee has been provided with the answers to such 

questions as they have been propounded to various department 

heads in the past. I have been around here 50 years and this is 

something the committee needs to know. See what you can do and 

see if you can provide that for the record. 

[The information follows:]

NON-RELEASE OF DEPARTMENT’S OMB BUDGET REQUEST

According to the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], the advice and counsel 

leading up to the recommendations that form the basis of the President’s budget are 

part of the internal deliberative process of the executive branch. Similar to the premark up activities of any congressional committee, the initial views and positions 
130

within the executive branch vary widely relative to the outcome in the President’s 

budget. In order to assure the President the full benefit of advice from the agencies 

and departments, the administration treats these working papers, such as the Department’s OMB budgets, as pre-decisional, internal documents. Therefore, the Department’s OMB budget is not releasable outside of the executive branch.

Senator BYRD. Is my time up? 

Senator BURNS. It is, and I would call on Senator Domenici. 

CLEAN COAL

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Secretary, I want to compliment the administration on the continuing commitment to the Clean Coal 

Power initiative and to the Clean Coal Power and Coal Research 

initiative in the 2004 budget. I believe we should capitalize on our 

greatest strength in coal and nuclear, in both areas and address 

the risk areas. I think you are handling these in the right way now 

and I compliment you for it. 

I would like to assure you that coal initiatives will address issues 

associated with mining as well as the subsequent combustion process. For example, I want to cite this for you and for you, Senator 

Byrd. There is a small company in New Mexico in the city of Raton 

which has worked with a Russian institute through your Department’s Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention to develop instruments that allow remarkable refinements in coal and how it is 

mined. 

This instrument, which actually mounts itself on a drill head, enables the drill to automatically, believe it or not, leave the last few 

inches of the top and bottom of the coal seam in place. The majority, it happens, of all the heavy metal contaminants are in those 

few inches of coal. Can I repeat? The majority of the metal contaminants, which are the worse, are in those few inches. This machine goes through the mine and leaves that there, never touches 

it, and it’s geared to it, it’s instrumented to it, it’s all technology. 

What comes out is coal that is far less contaminated. Thus, the 

burden of what you have to do with it to clean it is dramatically 

reduced. 

I continue to believe that we should focus on research and development in clean coal. I like the big picture, let’s produce a machine. 

I think the same way about nuclear, let’s produce the new nuclear 

machine. But at the same time, there is research of this type and 

many like it, and I would like to call it to your attention because 

I believe it has some fantastic potential for America. I would hate 

to see it used exclusively in Russia for the next 8 or 10 years before 

we take a look. So I leave that with you and I will call it to your 

attention again, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Thank you. 

FUEL CELLS

Senator DOMENICI. On oil and gas research, I’m disappointed in 

the request. I told you about it, but I believe we will work together 

on this committee to see what we can do about it. 

On fuel cells, the administration’s proposed initiatives for fuel 

cells and hydrogen R&D have been very well received in the scientific community and in the Congress. The so-called FreedomCar 

and other things that go with it are excellent ideas. There is a seri-
131

ous question about whether that program is going to get us where 

we want to be fast enough, but in an economy where we don’t have 

all the money in the world to spend, I believe for an initiative just 

announced to have $1.4 billion is an excellent start. 

A recent report of the National Research Council raised the 

issue, essentially saying that in its assessment, that a number of 

the fuel cell demonstration projects seemed to be getting ahead of 

our progress on essential fuel cell R&D. Mr. Secretary, do you 

share my concern that we need more fundamental R&D to make 

progress on fuel cell technology? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Yes, we do. The challenges we have on the 

hydrogen fuel cell and FreedomCar initiatives are multiple. We 

have a challenge in bringing down the cost of the fuel cell itself. 

The price has come down a lot in recent years, but it still has a 

long way to go. 

Second, we have an issue relating to storage. We have to be able 

to store sufficient power on the vehicle to enable the range that 

they think you should be able to drive, that’s 300 miles, and there 

is research involved there. We have the production of the hydrogen, 

and one of the things that we are doing in this next 5-year period 

is to try to invest in a variety of production technologies, coal being 

a possible source, nuclear energy being a possible source, natural 

gas being a source, and renewable sources as well. 

Senator DOMENICI. Just for the record, I rode around in one. How 

much was the cost of that one? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. The rental cost is in the $10,000 range. 

Senator DOMENICI. Aren’t they worth more than a few million 

dollars each? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Yes. 

Senator DOMENICI. I would expect that if they are going to each 

cost $10 million, we will have to vote on whether we want to make 

any progress or not. Let me leave that. 

What is your assessment of research on liquid hydrogen, compressed gas, and carrier fuels that would transport hydrogen in vehicles? 

HYDROGEN VEHICLES

Secretary ABRAHAM. At the end of the day, our belief is that 

some of these technologies, can work for near-term demonstrations 

of hydrogen vehicles. One of the major problems is that they, for 

example, the liquid tanks come nowhere close to meeting the volume targets, the issue I mentioned a moment ago. One of the ideas 

a few years ago was electric vehicles, and then people realized the 

distance you could drive was constrained. We recognize that for a 

hydrogen motor vehicle fleet to work, people have to see it as a 

comparable product to the product it’s used to, it has to drive as 

far, sufficient power and size, but you have to be able to refuel and 

get home when you drive some place, and the storage issues are 

substantial for liquid tanks and compressed tanks. 

Fuels like gasoline or methanol can be used, you have to have 

an on-board processing unit, and the processors have been reduced 

dramatically in size. They are expensive and complicated projects, 

so again, we question whether either of these routes will get you 
132

to a vehicle comparably priced even after much development, which 

is why we tried to develop the fuel cell. 

FUEL CELL RESEARCH AT LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY

Senator DOMENICI. I want to close my testimony here by making 

a suggestion to you. I note that the researchers at Los Alamos National Laboratory continue to make progress in fuel cell research, 

and I think you would concur in that statement. I think they are 

poised to be one of the centers of excellence in this area. I believe 

the Nation needs to create a center to integrate a number of the 

specialties to more easily develop commercially-ready fuel cell initiatives, and I think the Department ought to be thinking about a 

center, a focal point. I ask you to consider that and obviously in 

your consideration of it, if you might consider Los Alamos as a center of excellence to pursue more vigorously the various research 

moving efficiently towards a prototype and more ready-to-go-fuel 

cell. 

Secretary ABRAHAM. The answer would be of course as we move 

through those considerations, both the question of one or more centers will be examined, and we already have I think very high regard for the work that has gone on and continues at Los Alamos 

in this area. What we’re trying at this stage to do is to determine 

the road map in kind of the logistics. I think we have an excellent 

road map in terms of the research pathway forward. A key part of 

that is we really make sure that the money that’s needed, I think 

80 percent is the amount that we believe has to be focused on basic 

research with a smaller percentage, 20 percent or so in terms of 

demonstrations, and now that we have that pathway for it, I think 

how we execute the pathway is what is important. 

We definitely know what the research challenges are and we 

hope to keep people realistic about the time frame. People think 

that somehow in 4 or 5 years, we can mandate or force the marketplace to move faster than it is prepared to move and I think that 

will undermine the success of this transformation. It took many, 

many years and a trillion dollars to build the petroleum infrastructure we have today and it’s going to take time with respect to a 

hydrogen fuel infrastructure, and if you try to short-cut that, it 

would be counterproductive. 

Senator DOMENICI. But Mr. Secretary, the objective of moving as 

rapidly as you can in the most efficient manner to get to a consumer-ready fuel cell system is something you must look at every 

day, because that may not happen by having diffuse research that’s 

going on with everybody excited about their little business. 

Secretary ABRAHAM. You are absolutely correct and there is no 

question that the time issue is critical in the following respect. This 

has always been 30 years away. 

Senator DOMENICI. It’s not now. 

Secretary ABRAHAM. I will say this. It will be 30 years away if 

we don’t put it on a fast track, don’t fund it and don’t move with 

the vehicles at the same time. Because as I think many of you are 

already well aware, which is a challenge itself, is we can’t just 

build the car when there isn’t a fuel system, or a fuel system when 

there is no car. We really have to move them both. 
133

Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

HYBRID TECHNOLOGY

Senator BURNS. I want to follow up on that. You have cut Vision 

21 on the hybrids and that tells me that the production or the results of that R&D has been on the negative side. Can you bring me 

up to date? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. In the budget we submitted, we’re seeking 

a higher amount than we did last year for hybrid technology because we do see developments in that area as still beneficial. However, we don’t believe the hybrids are the final answer, we see this 

as a transitional step between where we are today with a basic, 

you know, internal combustion engine, traditional system and the 

day in 20 years or so when hydrogen vehicles are available. We 

would like to and believe there can be an expansion of other kinds 

of more fuel efficient vehicles and we see hybrids as a part of that 

transition, which is why you will see that we are proposing a slight 

increase in hybrid technology. 

Senator BURNS. I am concerned about all these cuts in particular 

areas. I don’t want you to weaken your hand when it comes to 

interagency governmental policy. I think you have to have a strong 

hand about interagency on these environmental issues, because I 

would like to see more cooperation between the Department of Energy and Department of the Interior. Sometimes those talks break 

down when we talk about either stationary or transportation fuels, 

so I would kick that up if we could. We are going to have new people to deal with at EPA, but this is very sensitive. 

I have some questions on off-shelf reserves. We talked about 

most of these issues privately, and I think we can deal with them. 

We look forward to working very closely with you as we develop 

this budget. 

Do you have any further questions, Senator Byrd? 

Senator BYRD. I do have some, Mr. Chairman. Shall I proceed? 

Senator BURNS. You may. 

CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Senator BYRD. 21⁄2 years ago, I referred to this earlier, candidate 

George Bush endorsed the Clean Coal Technology program, he 

committed to spend $2 billion over 10 years to support that program. That’s $200 million a year, a very strong endorsement of 

coal, and I’m sure that’s one of the reasons he was able to carry 

the State of West Virginia in the 2000 election. 

But despite his promise, in fiscal year 2002 he only proposed 

$150 million, in fiscal year 2003 he again proposed $150 million, 

and this fiscal year 2004 budget proposes just $130 million. By my 

calculation, I use the old math, I don’t think the new math will be 

far off the point, that’s $170 million behind on the promise. Rather 

than seeking $600 million for the Clean Coal program, as candidate 

Bush promised, the administration sought only $430 million, 38 

percent less than what was pledged. That seems to be a credibility 

gap between what was said and what has taken place. What can 

you say, Mr. Secretary, to the people who heard Mr. Bush as a candidate proclaim if he was elected that he would spend $2 billion on 
134

the Clean Coal program, and does the administration have a plan 

to live up to its commitment? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. I would state that we are $430 million 

ahead of where we were, and the administration has demonstrated 

those commitments, and in a variety of other regulatory debates 

that have gone on, that we are deeply committed, as I said earlier, 

to the coal sector and the role of coal in the energy mission. But 

I would just add to what I said earlier, that in addition to the 

Clean Coal Power initiative that you have discussed, there are 7 

more years to go and we are mindful of the commitment that was 

made. 

We have just announced the Future-Gen program, which I be- lieve will be a very substantial $1 billion program over the next 10 

to 12 years, so it’s my anticipation that the Future-Gen program 

will be running parallel to the Clean Coal Power initiative and the 

combination of these over this time frame will at least reach the 

level that the President committed and could conceivably be a fair 

bit higher than that level when the price tags are added up at the 

end. 

Senator BYRD. Mr. Secretary, you seem to be counting all coal research. Mr. Bush cited in specificity the Clean Coal program, not 

coal in general, he said Clean Coal. And so, there is a credibility 

gap. He wasn’t talking about all coal, he was talking about clean 

coal research when he used that figure. 

FUTURE-GEN

Secretary ABRAHAM. Senator, again, I focus on our Future-Gen 

proposal as being the greatest enterprise that will be undertaken 

to demonstrate how we can generate power with coal in an environmentally clean fashion. It complements the Clean Coal initiative 

that you referenced and so I believe, as I said, over the 10 years, 

I mean, the combination of those programs will more than meet the 

$2 billion commitment the President made. 

NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY

Senator BYRD. The administration’s request for the Office of Fos- sil Energy contains $92.7 million for employee salaries and expenses. Most of those people are assigned to the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory headquartered in Morgantown, West Virginia. On the face of it, it would appear to be a $5.5 million increase over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. But just as it did last 

year, the administration has again double counted $14 million in 

employee salaries previously authorized under the Clean Coal acts. 

The true request, therefore, is not $92.7 million, but, rather, $78.7 

million, an 11 percent cut that translates into a loss of 150 jobs. 

The country cannot afford to lose 150 of the brightest fossil energy scientists we have. I can assure you that I will do everything 

I can to see to it that this budgetary sleight-of-hand is reversed. 

In the meantime, would you please tell the committee the rationale 

for this decision, and is the Department of Energy responsible or 

as I would rather think, have you been dictated to by the Office 

of Management and Budget? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Senator, I take all the responsibility, because that’s my job, and my only comment would be that we cer-
135

tainly will do our very best to address the issue of the work force. 

I’m happy to note that in addition to the money we had available 

to work with when we submitted the budget, the advanced appropriations which were included in the final enacted budget included 

an additional $80 million which we did not have access to when we 

made our submission for Clean Coal Technology. Obviously, the implementation of programs with that money will require us really to 

have more program direction and we’ll work within that amount 

certainly to try to address the question of our work force. 

FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAM TOP-TO-BOTTOM REVIEW

Senator BYRD. Last year when you testified before the subcommittee, you told the subcommittee that you had directed the 

new assistant secretary to conduct a top-to-bottom review of all 

programs under his jurisdiction. And on November 21, 2002, you 

wrote to me that the committee would be fully briefed on the contents of the review as soon as it had been approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget. The approval has now taken place and 

I know our subcommittee has, in fact, received a copy of the review, 

but I don’t believe our staff has been fully briefed on its contents, 

nor have they had the opportunity to ask questions about the review’s many recommendations. For example, it would be helpful to 

know more about the management reforms that have been proposed on page 4 of the review for the Office of Fossil Energy and 

the National Energy Technology Lab in Morgantown. Given the 

fact that any such reorganization would have to be approved by the 

committee before it could be implemented, it’s important to have 

these matters discussed with our staff as soon as possible. 

Can you tell us when you anticipate having the fossil energy 

staff brief the subcommittee staff? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. I believe, Senator, in fact your staff brought 

this specifically to my attention, or at least that there has been inadequate communication between our staffers, this week on Tuesday. I conveyed that to my staff on Tuesday. My understanding is 

there was conversation yesterday with an offer actually to come up 

yesterday to provide an initial opportunity to have discussions, but 

because of the hearing that was happening today, that was not feasible. So it’s my understanding there will be a meeting next week. 

I don’t know that that will satisfy all of the issues, but it will be 

a starting point of what I hope will be much more frequent discussion and dialogue between the staffs. And I would make clear to 

you as I did to your staff, that if there is an inadequate level of 

this communication, please bring it to my attention and I will be 

happy to address it. 

Senator BYRD. Very well, thank you. If you do intend to move 

forward with a reorganization, can you tell the committee whether 

you expect to formally seek the committee’s approval? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. I guess I’m happy to try to answer that, but 

I’m not sure I can answer it at this time. Perhaps the Assistant 

Secretary, who is here—within the next week would be a time 

frame in which the request should be forthcoming. 
136

COMPETITIVE SOURCING PROGRAM

Senator BYRD. Very well, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have just 

a couple other quick ones, if I may. 

One of the government-wide initiatives that I am particularly interested in is the administration’s competitive sourcing program. 

As I understand it, the Office of Management and Budget essentially scores each department and agency on how well it complies 

with the President’s management agenda. The various agencies are 

encouraged to submit management plans to the OMB and to meet 

competitive sourcing targets outlined in the President’s budget. I 

have been informed by officials at OMB that these plans, while 

submitted to OMB for approval, may be released to the public at 

the discretion of the agency or department head. 

If this subcommittee is to recommend the appropriation of nearly $1.8 billion to the Department of Energy for the programs under 

the committee’s jurisdiction, I think it’s reasonable to expect a full 

accounting of any management plan or competitive sourcing plan 

submitted to OMB for approval. Will you please tell the committee 

the status of your Department’s competitive sourcing plan, and will 

you agree to make it available to the Congress when it is complete? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Senator, I would be happy to make it available if it is—unless there are constraints I am unaware of. If it is 

being made available by other agencies, we wouldn’t have a different viewpoint on that, and I would be glad to also provide, if the 

committee would like, some kind of personal briefing on it by the 

folks who have been engaged in the competitive sources work. 

[The information follows:]

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, REVISED COMPETITIVE SOURCING PLAN

[June 9, 2003] 

BACKGROUND

The Department of Energy [DOE] listed 9,889 full-time equivalents [FTE] on its 

2001 FAIR Act Inventory as ‘‘commercial,’’ or about 67 percent of DOE’s total civilian workforce of 14,717 FTE. These figures include 3,409 commercial FTE at the 

Power Marketing Administrations [PMA]. Since the PMAs are largely funded by 

ratepayers and are already subject to the competitive forces of the marketplace, the 

Department and the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] mutually agreed to 

exclude the PMAs from the competitive sourcing initiative. Consequently, the Department’s overall goal is to study 3,230 positions or 33 percent of its commercially 

coded FTE. In March 2002, DOE commenced studies on 972 FTE. As a result of further review and analysis, the total number of FTE included in the Department’s 

first round of studies has increased to approximately 1,100. DOE plans to study an 

additional 2,100 FTE in fiscal year 2004 and beyond to reach its OMB mandated 

objective. It is expected that the taxpayers will benefit from the initiative, regardless of who wins the competitions, as a result of reduced costs, greater effectiveness, 

and increased responsiveness. 

SUMMARY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Department plans to meet its goals through the use of in-house and contract 

support resources. The Department assembled a team of management, human resources, financial, acquisition and functional area analysts and defined the conversion, public-private competitions and privatization initiatives necessary to meet 

DOE’s fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 performance targets. The Department 

awarded Performance Based Service Contracts (PBSC) to support the development 

of the management studies and competitions. The provisions of OMB Circular A–

76 govern DOE’s studies and competitions. The Department will continue its ongoing studies and will conduct feasibility studies to determine the specific activities 

and related FTE that should be studied in future rounds. Business case anaylses 
137

will be the methodology employed, as well as a determination as to the studies’ resource impacts and the ability of the Department to sustain its mission. 

Below is a further breakout of the fiscal year 2002/2003 plan by Departmental 

function and FTE. The name of the individual responsible for the Department of Energy’s Office of Competitive Sourcing/A–76, with telephone number, is also provided. 

Competitive Sourcing Project Manager: Dennis E. O’Brien, Office of Management, 

Budget and Evaluation/CFO 

Phone Number: (202) 586–1690

The Department, on March 22, 2002, announced an initial list of 927 FTE to be 

competed in fiscal year 2002/2003. As anticipated, the number increased to approximately 1,100. It is expected that the scope of the studies and changes to the baseline 

will occur as the teams continue to review the functions and FTE under study. 

Announced cost comparison functions: Financial Services, 150 FTE, Departmentwide. Revised to 159 FTE; Information Technology, 420 FTE, Department- wide. Revised to 642 FTE; Human Resources (training), 98 FTE, Department-wide. Revised 

to 130 FTE; Logistics, 190 FTE, Department-wide. Revised to 220 FTE; Personnel 

Security Investigators, 27 FTE, Department-wide. Study Deferred; Paralegal Support, 21 FTE, Department-wide. Exempted from further study; Graphics, 13 FTE; 

and Civil Rights Reviews, 8 FTE. 

These figures do not include contractor positions that are also being studied by 

the A–76 Teams. 

Overall the Department expects to compete at least 30 percent percent of its adjusted 2001 FAIR Act inventory upon the conclusion of its first round of studies. 

We estimate that the one-time additional budgetary cost of conducting these competitions will be about $6M (based on an estimated cost of $7,700 per FTE for a 

multifunction/multilocation study subjected to a full public-private cost comparison 

and other associated study and acquisition costs). 

The Department has completed the initial overview training program for competition managers, program managers, selected employees, and labor organizations that 

focused on the A–76 process. The Department’s training emphasized performance 

and delivering quality service in the most cost-effective manner.

Tasks Completion date 

Complete fiscal year 2001 FAIR Act Inventory/Challenges/Appeals .................................................................. Completed. 

Develop Competitive Sourcing Plan ................................................................................................................... Completed. 

Identify functions, locations and FTE ....................................................................................................... Completed. 

Coordinate program with employee labor organizations .......................................................................... Completed. 

Establish communication/training program ............................................................................................. Completed. 

Publish guidance for functions with 10 or fewer FTE ............................................................................. Completed. 

Publish guidance for cost comparisons ................................................................................................... Completed 

Create tracking and reporting database .................................................................................................. June 2003. 

Develop, plan and schedule fiscal year 2002/2003 studies ............................................................................. Completed. 

Assemble team to review inventories/functions on sourcing plans ......................................................... Completed 

Review competitive sourcing plans and adjust as needed ..................................................................... Completed 

Identify potential functional or geographic groupings ............................................................................. Completed 

Determine schedule for function reviews ................................................................................................. Completed 

Announce functions to be studied in fiscal year 2002/2003 .................................................................. Completed 

Develop performance-based work statements for common functions ..................................................... Completed 

Issue Guidance for fiscal year 2002 FAIR Act Inventory ................................................................................... Completed. 

Submit fiscal year 2002 FAIR Act inventory to OMB ........................................................................................ Completed. 

Establish Study Team Organizations ................................................................................................................. Completed. 

Select Study Team Support Contractors ............................................................................................................ Completed. 

Develop and submit for Secretarial approval individual study action plans ................................................... Completed. 

FISCAL YEAR 2004/05 COMPETITIVE SOURCING/A–76 PLANNING

DOE is initiating a feasibility study to determine the FTE to be competed in fiscal 

year 2004–2005. This study will encompass cost benefit tradeoff analyses, identification of potential functions/organizations and related FTE, identification of locations 

and recommended number of studies, identification of insourcing opportunities and 

characterization of mission/personnel and geographical impacts. The result will be 

the development of the most effective and efficient business case to support particular study areas. 

INSOURCING

DOE has and will continue to explore insourcing opportunities when it is deemed 

appropriate to fulfill mission requirements and in cases where significant effi-
138

ciencies and economies can be achieved. The Department received approval under 

the fiscal year 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act to federalize its Emergency Operations contractor workforce. To-date, this has resulted in 

a conversion of 30 contractor positions with an additional 5 positions expected to 

be federalized by the end of fiscal year 2003. Overall, this national security related 

initiative will result in a net savings of $1.7 million annually. These savings will 

be redirected to enhance emergency operations training and to provide additional 

technical assistance to the field. Also during fiscal year 2003 and 2004, DOE will 

be soliciting organizations to identify insourcing opportunities warranting an A–76 

study. To date, potential insourcing opportunities have been identified and are being 

investigated in the function of aircraft maintenance.

Senator BURNS. I think that would be helpful. 

CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY EXPORTS

Senator BYRD. I have one last question. Congress has urged the 

administration to support increased opportunities to open and expand international energy markets and export U.S. clean energy 

technologies to developing countries and other nations abroad. 

These efforts are very important to help meet our own energy security needs, addressing related economic job creation, trade, environmental, and climate change objectives. Additionally, such efforts 

could significantly aid in meeting other nations’ infrastructure and 

development needs while also increasing the deployment of a range 

of U.S. clean energy technologies, including clean coal technologies. 

The Clean Energy Technology Exports, or CETE, will help meet 

that challenge. It had its genesis within the Senate Appropriations 

Committee and has had broad bipartisan support. The administration has talked about such ideas on occasion, but despite such rhetoric, the participating Federal agencies have done little, if anything, to implement the strategic plan. It seems to me that someone is sitting on their hands and missing a critical opportunity. 

Because the Department of Energy is a leading agency involved 

in the implementation of the CETE initiative as called for by the 

Congress and released by the administration in October of 2002, 

what specific actions is your agency taking to work with the other 

Federal agencies and to engage nongovernmental organizations, 

private sector companies, and other international partners with regard to this plan? And can you tell the committee when the Appropriations Committee will receive the required annual CETE 

progress report that was due to this committee on March 1, 2003? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Senator, here is what I know we have done. 

We have created a new Office of International Energy Market Development, and acting separately the Fossil Energy Division has 

developed an international program for clean coal which will augment the efforts of that. We have now been designated to be a cochair of the interagency working group to try to promote clean energy exports, so that gives us a greater role in being able to move 

this ahead, which we intend to do. 

Obviously, a lot of work that we are engaged in is applicable to 

sharing internationally. But if I could just go beyond the confines 

of that program to reassure you that this is a high priority that I 

have personally become engaged with. We have a lot of meetings 

both in Washington, and occasionally in multilateral and international settings with developing countries who are just starting to 

look at how they can address their growing demand for energy with 

environmental concerns, and we have been looking at a lot of bilat-
139

eral working groups to try to provide that assistance on that basis 

as well. 

It is probably the single most frequently requested support that 

I receive when I am having a meeting with an energy minister 

from a developing country because they are challenged, they don’t 

have the technology to do the sorts of things they want in an environmentally clean or effective way. So I see it as an area of substantial growth on the international side of what we do, even in addition to the program which you talked about. 

I’m not sure what the status of the March 1 report is and if 

somebody with me can answer that, and if they can’t, we will get 

you an answer for the record immediately. 

[The information follows:]

STATUS OF CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY REPORT

The Department expects to submit the clean Energy Technology Report to Congress by the end of July 2003.

Senator BYRD. Very well. If I have further questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit them for the record. 

SOLID STATE CONVERSION ALLIANCE

Senator BURNS. You might update us along the same lines with 

respect to the solid state conversion alliance. Can you update the 

committee on the progress of the program and how you propose allocating resources for fiscal year 2004, to ensure you have adequate 

resources for the team to fulfill its promises? 

Secretary ABRAHAM. I will be happy to. I will comment in general 

here, I don’t think there is at all disagreement as to the potential 

for solid state energy production the program is designed to 

achieve. I think we are in total agreement, as far as I can tell, 

which is, this is a program with which we are in agreement in 

terms of what the issue is, what is the pace at which we get there 

and what is the timetable that has the highest potential for success. So, I will be glad to get that information for the committee. 

[The information follows:]

SOLID STATE ENERGY CONVERSION ALLIANCE

Overall, the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance Program [SECA] is progressing extremely well. In fact, there is early interest from auto manufacturers in 

SECA type fuel cells as evidenced by BMW’s arrangement with Delphi, one of the 

SECA industry team developers, to put a compact fuel cell unit for auxiliary power 

in the trunks of BMW vehicles by 2007. 

The SECA program is dedicated to developing innovative, effective, low-cost ways 

to commercialize solid oxide fuel cells [SOFCs]. The program is designed to move 

fuel cells out of limited niche markets into widespread market applications by making them available at a cost of $400 per kilowatt or less through the mass 

customization of common modules. SECA fuel cells will operate on today’s conventional fuels such as natural gas, diesel, as well as coal gas and hydrogen, the fuel 

of tomorrow. The program will provide a bridge to the hydrogen economy beginning 

with the introduction of SECA fuel cells for stationary (both central generation and 

distributed energy) and auxiliary power applications. 

The SECA program is currently structured to include competing industry teams 

supported by a crosscutting core technology program. SECA has six industry teams 

working on designs that can be mass-produced at costs that are ten-fold less than 

current costs. The SECA core technology program is made up of researchers from 

industry suppliers and manufacturers as well as from universities and national laboratories all working towards addressing key science and technology gaps to provide 

breakthrough solutions to critical issues facing SECA. 
140

The SECA industry teams collectively are making very good progress. Delphi, in 

partnership with Battelle, is developing a 5 kW (kilowatt), planar, 700C–800C, 

anode-supported SOFC compact unit for the distributed generation [DG] and auxiliary power unit [APU] markets. Delphi is expert at system integration and highvolume manufacturing and cost reduction. They are focused on making a very compact and light-weight system suitable for auxiliary power in transportation applications. 

General Electric is initially developing a natural gas 5 kW, planar, 700C–800C, 

anode-supported SOFC compact unit for residential power markets. GE is evaluating several stack designs and is especially interested in extending planar SOFCs 

to large hybrid systems. They also have a radial design that can simplify packaging 

by minimizing the need for seals. GE has made good progress in achieving high fuel 

utilization with improved anode performance using standard materials by optimizing microstructure. 

Cummins and SOFCo (formerly McDermott) are developing a 10 kW product initially for recreational vehicles [RVs] that would run on propane using a catalytic 

partial oxidation [CPOX] reformer. The team has produced a conceptual design for 

a multilayer SOFC stack assembled from low-cost ‘‘building blocks.’’ The basic cell, 

a thin electrolyte layer (50–75 micron) is fabricated by tape casting. Anode ink is 

screen-printed onto the one side of the electrolyte tape, and cathode ink onto the 

other. The printed cell is sandwiched between layers of dense ceramic that will accommodate reactant gas flow and electrical conduction. The assembly is then cofired to form a single repeat unit. 

Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. [SWPC] is developing 5–10 kW products to 

satisfy multiple markets. SWPC has developed a new tube design for their 5 kW 

units that use flat, high power density [HPD] tubes. This allows for a shorter tube 

length and twice the power output compared to their current cylindrical tube. It also 

results in more efficient manufacturing, assembly, and better volumetric power density. 

The Department is requesting $33 million in fiscal year 2004 for the SECA Program from several research budget elements. Primary funding of $23.5 million will 

be provided from the Distributed Generation Fuel Cells Innovative Concepts budget 

line. This funding will be primarily for the six industry teams. In addition, $6.0 million for SECA from Fuel Cells Advanced Research will be used for the SECA core 

technology program, $1.5 million for SECA from Advanced Research—for research 

on materials for coal-based SECA systems, and $2.0 million for SECA from Advanced Metallurgical Research (Albany), for metallurgical research applicable to 

general SECA systems. Additionally, in fiscal year 2004, we will begin funding the 

two additional SECA industry teams just added in fiscal year 2003—Fuel Cell Energy and Acumentrics. These industry teams represent additional industry design 

alternatives that will enhance the prospects of success of SECA fuel cells for a 

broader market. The SECA program cost-share levels range from 20–50 percent. For 

the industry teams the cost share begins at 20 percent and ends at 50 percent for 

later phases.

Senator BURNS. Okay, I think that takes care of just about all 

our questions. There will be a couple more coming up. And I want 

to thank Senator Byrd for being here this morning, and for you. We 

know the scheduling is tough. We will leave the record open for a 

couple weeks and hopefully after the break, we will begin finalizing 

these appropriations. 

Secretary ABRAHAM. Senator, thank you.

ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

Senator BURNS. There will be some additional questions which 

will be submitted for your response in the record. 

[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but were 

submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the hearing:] 
141

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR CONRAD BURNS

HYDROGEN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Question. Your testimony refers to the difficult ‘‘chicken and egg’’ problem that 

confronts us as we discuss moving to a hydrogen-based transportation system. No 

consumer is likely to invest in hydrogen or fuel cell products without adequate fueling infrastructure in place, and nobody will invest in fueling infrastructure without 

customers. How do you think we get past this problem? 

Answer. Launching a hydrogen-fueled transportation system does face the classic 

‘‘chicken and egg’’ question as it relates to fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen infrastructure. Establishing a new fuel infrastructure such as hydrogen will be complicated, 

yet it will need to be largely in place when widespread fuel cell vehicle introduction 

starts. Strong market signals will be needed for this infrastructure development to 

happen, making low cost hydrogen production and delivery technologies essential. 

Transition strategies will have to be developed that are far more effective than what 

has been used to foster markets for today’s alternative fuels. The exact nature of 

those strategies will depend on infrastructure and vehicle technologies that are far 

from being fully developed. Therefore, the Department is working with all stakeholders to develop both the vehicle and the infrastructure technologies in parallel. 

DOE’s planning efforts have included the FreedomCAR Partnership Plan, the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, and R&D plans. These documents describe how 

DOE will integrate its ongoing and future vehicle and hydrogen R&D activities into 

a focused effort. This coordinated DOE effort will improve the effectiveness and accountability of DOE’s research, development and demonstration (RD&D) activities 

and strengthen its contribution to achieving the technical milestones on the road to 

a hydrogen economy. 

Question. What have we learned to date from efforts to get other alternative 

fueled vehicles into the marketplace? 

Answer. Our experience with alternative fuels tells us that the issue of reasonable 

fuel availability must be resolved before widespread acceptance of dedicated alternative fueled vehicles is possible. DOE learned that consumers find it simply more 

convenient to operate fuel flexible vehicles with petroleum-based fuels rather than 

alternative fuels because of the lack of alternative refueling stations. In addition, 

natural gas, methanol and ethanol vehicles are limited to niche markets or certain 

regions because fuel for these vehicles isn’t available nation-wide. 

Because hydrogen is a universal energy carrier made from various primary energy 

resources, we think it can be a standardized national fuel. This assumes successful 

resolution of technical and cost barriers, and development of codes and standards. 

To address these issues, the Department is launching a transportation and infrastructure partnership with industry and local government agencies to demonstrate 

and evaluate fuel cell vehicles under real operating conditions to obtain cost, performance and reliability information, and hydrogen fueling stations to validate efficient, clean, and economical hydrogen production, storage, and delivery technologies, 

including standard vehicle refueling interfaces, safety practices, and codes and 

standards. 

Question. Some have suggested that natural gas might be a logical bridge to a 

hydrogen based transportation system. Is there merit to this suggestion, or are we 

likely to have to make the leap directly to hydrogen from today’s gasoline-based system? 

Answer. Hydrogen does present a long-term solution to America’s energy security 

needs, and can do so with significant benefits for the local and global environment. 

Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy resource like natural gas, and can be 

produced from a variety of domestic feedstocks. This feedstock diversity is a benefit 

unique to hydrogen and means we would not be dependent on any one energy resource. 

In the near-term, natural gas will be an important hydrogen feedstock. It is a 

good choice for near-term hydrogen production because the distribution infrastructure exists, and because the economics are presently more favorable than that of 

other feedstocks. 

Hydrogen production is not expected to increase demand for natural gas by any 

more than 5 percent in 2025, due to the small number of vehicles expected to be 

on the road. The vehicle infrastructure needed for these demands will be small. It 

is envisioned that as the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle fleet increases, our ability to 

produce hydrogen from other sources will grow to match it. In the long-term, we 

hope to generate hydrogen through renewable energy and other carbon-free processes, such as nuclear energy. 
142

ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS—PARTNERSHIP FOR A NEW GENERATION

OF VEHICLES (PNGV) AND FREEDOMCAR

Question. Your budget states that the FreedomCAR program will build on the successes of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program and 

learn from its failures. What were the successes of the PNGV program? 

Answer. PNGV provided the framework for government and industry to align previously independent research to address common societal goals. The partnership 

opened up new channels of communication between industry and government, which 

has provided both parties with access to more and better technical data. 

In its annual reviews of the PNGV, the National Research Council noted ‘‘the substantial accomplishments already gained in pursuing the program so far’’ (seventh 

report—2001) and observed that the partnership has ‘‘enhanced cooperation at all 

levels and has achieved results more rapidly than would have been the case in the 

absence of partnership’’ (6th report—2000). Selected concrete examples of technological achievements are listed below. 

Enabling research 

—Increased the life of lithium ion batteries from 2 years to 7 years for hybridelectric vehicle drives. 

—Demonstrated that, under certain conditions, advanced diesel fuel formulations 

can achieve particulate matter (PM) emission reductions of up to 35 percent 

without compromising fuel efficiency or raising oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions. 

Vehicle integration 

—The aluminum body structure on the Ford’s Prodigy concept vehicle is 53 percent lighter than a conventional steel design, and the process used on the Prodigy is applicable to high volume production. 

—In DaimlerChrysler’s ESX3 concept vehicle, the unique thermoplastic injection 

molded body system is estimated to reduce weight by 46 percent and cost by 

15 percent versus conventional steel structures. 

—General Motors’ Precept concept vehicle proved the technical feasibility of 

achieving 80 miles per gallon, however, high cost remained as a major barrier 

toward commercialization. 

PNGV Research successes migrating into production 

—Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and Chevrolet vehicles incorporate aluminum door, deck, 

and hood panels by utilizing a PNGV developed production processes. 

—The 2001 Chevrolet Silverado uses a 50-pounds lighter composite pickup truck 

box. 

—The 2001 Jeep Wrangler utilizes a new, lighter, recyclable thermoplastic hardtop. 

FreedomCAR will build on the technology advancements gained from successful 

PNGV R&D efforts. The new research portfolio, focused on longer range, higher risk 

research, will be applicable to a broader range of production vehicles. 

Question. What were PNGV’s failures, and what have we learned from them? 

Answer. FreedomCAR is taking advantage of the technological progress made 

under the PNGV to build a stronger, better partnership more closely aligned with 

the Nation’s needs. The centerpiece of the FreedomCAR Partnership is the effort to 

develop efficient, affordable fuel cell technologies that can help to reduce our Nation’s petroleum consumption while eliminating vehicle emissions. 

One key improvement of FreedomCAR compared with PNGV concerns management structure. DOE, the agency that funded the majority of PNGV activities, now 

solely represents the government in the partnership, with consultation from other 

agencies as appropriate. The streamlined organizational structure improves communication with the industry. 

Another improvement is in the research time horizon and focus. The PNGV had 

a 10-year horizon and was aimed at a single vehicle platform, the mid-size sedan. 

In order to meet the accelerated 10-year horizon, some promising technologies (i.e., 

ultracapacitors) were prematurely downselected from the research portfolio. These 

technologies were unable to meet the requirements of the PNGV within the 10-year 

horizon. The single vehicle platform narrowed the research focus on a vehicle segment that was the highest selling segment at the start of the partnership but did 

not address the explosion in the sport utility vehicles. 

FreedomCAR is focused on performing R&D at the component and sub-systems 

level and leaves the vehicle integration of these technologies to the automakers, offering more flexibility. As in the PNGV, FreedomCAR places significant effort on the 

core technologies supporting hybrids, such as advanced materials and batteries, not 
143

only because the work is essential for the hydrogen vehicle but also because of the 

near-term benefits possible from petroleum-fueled power sources in hybrid. 

TRANSITION OF TECHNOLOGIES TO MARKET

Question. In several places your budget request terminates or reduces funding for 

activities that are closer to the deployment end of the R&D spectrum, choosing instead to focus resources on more basic, high-risk research. Generally speaking I understand this philosophy, but at some point we run the risk of investing in a lot 

of technological advances that will sit on the shelf without some additional support 

for deployment or demonstration. Do you think your budget request is balanced in 

this regard? 

Answer. Yes, I believe it is balanced. About ten years ago these programs made 

a similar (but opposite) shift in their balance, moving some resources from more 

basic work to near-term and deployment efforts. That was never intended to be a 

permanent change in balance. To some degree, we have been living off accumulated 

intellectual capital, and we now need to move the balance back toward more fundamental research in order to replenish those reserves and refill the technology pipeline. This is not a wholesale change in our R&D balance, however: we are continuing to propose substantial funding in a variety of deployment activities. 

Energy markets are changing and our energy policies have matured. The unusually low energy prices of the 1990s made it particularly difficult for new technologies 

to enter the marketplace successfully, and our energy policies were focused on showing action on near-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. While today’s energy prices are not high in historical terms, they are high enough to create significant economic incentives for energy efficiency in applications such as industrial 

processes. 

The progress we made on advancing hybrid vehicle technology has caused almost 

every major automobile manufacturer in the world to turn their attention to such 

vehicles, and competitive pressures are now growing to the point where most major 

auto manufacturers have announced production plans for at least some forms of hybrid vehicles. But the types of hybrids currently being announced and produced use 

conventional engine technologies, and do not offer the really dramatic gains in efficiency that we believe are possible with advanced technologies such as fuel cells and 

unconventional lightweight materials. 

In many cases, including hybrid and electric vehicles, the technologies we are currently deploying run the risk of remaining niche-market products unless technology 

breakthroughs or leapfrog approaches make their performance and economics so 

compelling that they become mainstream. 

Our energy and climate-change policies are now focused on the 2015–2020 timeframe, and we have a renewed emphasis on energy security. In order to make a 

major market impact in that timeframe, products will need to be competitive in 

broad market segments, not just niche markets, which is driving our search for 

leapfrog technologies in activities such as the FreedomCAR Partnership, the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, solid-state lighting for buildings, and distributed energy resources. 

Question. Take black liquor gasification, for example. We’ve invested significant 

funds to develop this technology in partnership with the pulp and paper industry, 

and the Department had expressed its intention to participate in at least three demonstrations of different gasification technologies. Now the budget proposes to terminate the program after only one partial demonstration. There is great potential for 

reduction in energy use and emissions if advanced technologies are deployed, but 

industry says the capital investment is simply too large to justify investing in an 

unproven technology. Is the industry just bluffing in your opinion? 

Answer. The Department did not request funds for the industrial gasification activities under the Interior Appropriation in fiscal year 2004 based upon the state 

of technology advances made and a review using the Administration’s R&D investment criteria, which helped guide this decision. The Department has invested substantially in R&D on the thermochemical conversion of biomass for producing 

power, fuels, and products that is directly applicable to the pulp and paper industry. 

We also are continuing with R&D on advanced technologies that will further lower 

the risk to industry for the deployment of these technologies. Additionally, we have 

committed available funds to complete our obligation for the black liquor gasifier 

demonstration at Big Island, VA. 

As discussed in the previous question, we believe that there are sufficient economic incentives for industry to adopt many new energy efficiency technologies such 

as black liquor gasification. When it comes to determining the appropriate Federal 

role in R&D, there is frequently an inherent tension between the Federal Govern-
144

ment (acting as a prudent steward of taxpayer dollars while seeking to maximize 

benefits from a broad research portfolio) and industry (which seeks to minimize new 

technology development and acquisition costs in order to reduce outlays and achieve 

a greater financial return for its investors). Thus, while the Department does not 

wish to conclude that industry is ‘‘just bluffing’’ in this instance, we would note that 

we believe it would be shortsighted of industry should they decide not to bring this 

gasification technology to commercialization. 

Question. Do you think market forces will eventually compel companies to install 

these new technologies on their own, or that industry will be forced to do so because 

of regulatory pressure? 

Answer. Those factors and more will provide businesses with the incentive to use 

or market the technologies that we have been developing. Virtually all of our efforts 

are planned in conjunction with industry, and the ‘‘road mapping’’ process we have 

used means that we know the technologies we have developed are useful, and the 

roadmaps give the companies a good sense of how they can utilize the technologies 

for their own benefit. In the case of some industries, such as the automakers discussed above, it is competitive pressures that will lead to adoption of new technologies. In energy-intensive industries, such as pulp and paper and the ones we 

have worked with in our Industrial Technologies program, the companies would be 

financially shortsighted not to make use of the energy- and cost-saving technologies 

we have developed. In yet other industries, the regulatory pressures you allude to 

may become important—there is clearly more interest now among heavy truck and 

bus manufacturers in adopting more efficient, less-polluting engine technologies 

than there was prior to the recent tightening of heavy diesel emissions standards. 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE R&D

Question. According to the budget justification, the rather small Off-highway Vehicle R&D program is being terminated ‘‘because other research opportunities have 

higher impact on energy savings.’’ In looking at the Department’s own R&D roadmap off-highway research, however, I find that off-highway uses account for 20 percent of fuel use in the transportation sector. I also find that of all mobile sources, 

large off-highway diesel engines contribute 20 percent of NOX emissions and 36 percent of particulate matter. Can you reconcile these figures on energy use and emissions with your decision to terminate a $3.5 million program? 

Answer. The definitions of ‘‘Off-Highway’’ and ‘‘Non-Highway’’ that DOE uses are 

found in the Transportation Energy Data Book, which is published annually by Oak 

Ridge National Laboratory for DOE. Off-Highway includes vehicles that are used in 

construction and agriculture. These vehicles accounted for 3.4 percent of transportation energy use in 2000. Non-Highway includes aircraft, marine vessels, rail and 

pipeline. These activities accounted for 21.1 percent of transportation energy use in 

2000. The Off-Highway Vehicle R&D effort within the FreedomCAR and Vehicle 

Technologies Program was aimed at saving oil in vehicles that account for less than 

four percent of the oil used in transportation, therefore the potential oil savings 

would be small relative to potential oil savings achievable by shifting these funds 

to other aspects of our transportation sector R&D portfolio. 

While off-highway vehicles currently contribute a disproportionately large amount 

of NOx and PM, we anticipate that EPA’s existing and proposed future emissions 

standards, to be phased in over the next decade, will result in a significant decline 

in criteria pollutant emissions from these sources. 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FUELS

Question. Your budget also eliminates funding for analysis of the environmental 

impacts of fuels, deeming this activity to be in the purview of other agencies. While 

I would agree that DOE shouldn’t be duplicating the efforts of EPA or other Federal 

agencies, I think there have been times that the Department has had differences 

with EPA about the environmental impacts of various fuels or technologies. Are you 

at all concerned that termination of this program will weaken your hand in interagency policy or regulatory discussions? 

Answer. DOE’s and EPA’s complementary efforts to research the environmental 

impacts of alternative fuels have been ongoing for many years at this point. DOE’s 

work was intended to ensure that emerging technologies do not have unforeseen 

negative environmental impacts, as was the case with tetraethyl lead and MTBE 

(methyl tertiary butyl ether). In addition, DOE activities investigated the environmental effects of fuels derived from diverse feedstocks such as biorenewables, oil 

sands (tar sands), and even hydrogen. EPA’s efforts focus on the determination of 

the impacts of current technologies and fuels on the environment. 
145

The DOE work provided a feedback loop to the management of our research and 

development efforts, but we believe that the topics have been quite thoroughly researched now. If such feedback is needed for additional fuels in the future, we feel 

we can rely on external organizations. EPA will continue to conduct the comprehensive evaluations necessary to support regulations. Since their research, rather than 

ours, has been what has driven regulations, we do not expect any regulatory impact 

from the termination of our program. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Question. First of all, let me acknowledge the work that your staff has done to 

be responsive to this committee’s repeated calls for better, more clearly written 

budget justifications. I’m not saying it’s a perfect document yet, but this year’s product is an improvement in many areas over past years. Some of the more interesting 

displays in the justification are your Government Performance and Results Act estimates that project the benefits of your R&D programs. I know this is a complex undertaking, but the numbers do raise some interesting questions. Among the Energy 

Conservation R&D programs, the Industrial echnologies program, the Vehicle Technologies program and the Buildings Technologies program are expected to produce 

by far the largest savings in energy use, oil consumption, and carbon emissions. In 

spite of this, the Industrial Technologies program is taking the largest cut of any 

program, and the vehicle and buildings programs are being reduced as well. How 

should we interpret this seemingly conflicting information? 

Answer. Potential benefits are but one consideration in making difficult allocation 

decisions. Other considerations include program performance, relative priority, and 

alignment with the Administration’s R&D investment criteria, among others (see response to next question). One aim of the R&D investment criteria is to ensure an 

appropriate Federal role exists, and that there are market barriers causing underinvestment by the private sector. In the case of many Industry Program R&D activities, firms have the financial incentive to invest in energy efficient technologies that 

can reduce their costs. Thus, the seemingly conflicting information you describe can 

be explained by our determination that, despite potentially large benefits, many industry R&D activities benefit firms more than the taxpayer, so there is less of a 

Federal role in these activities. 

We would make two important notes. First, on the whole, the reductions you identified were more than offset by increases in other programmatic areas. For example, 

reductions for some activities in the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies program 

were more than offset by increases in the Hydrogen (in the Energy Supply account) 

and Fuel Cells subprograms. This represents a shift in funding from near-term technology issues that industry is very capable of addressing, such as combustion engines and petroleum-based fuels, to more advanced technologies that offer greater 

energy and carbon-emissions benefits in the long term, such as fuel cells for hybrid 

vehicles. Second, we continue to improve our modeling assumptions and scenarios 

so that we can better compare potential benefits of technology investments within 

and between programs. This effort is a priority in helping to implement the Administration’s R&D investment criteria. 

Question. Aside from the expected benefits in terms of energy savings and emissions reductions, what other inputs are used as you develop your budget request? 

Answer. We seek a portfolio balance among a number of criteria: 

—the energy savings and emissions reductions that you’ve already mentioned, 

plus 

—other benefits like: 

—energy security, 

—pollution reduction, and 

—net economic benefits to society; 

—program performance and alignment with the Administration’s R&D investment 

criteria, which include many policy considerations such as: 

—the need for, or appropriateness of, a government role in a given technology 

(typically a clear public benefit with a market failure or friction that precludes optimal private investment); 

—plans for merit-based, competitive program execution; 

—industry’s apparent commitment to adopting or marketing a technology (often 

as evidenced by their willingness to cost-share); 

—clearly-defined performance measures and decision-points for the R&D area; 

—a technology’s or industry’s track record of progress based on those performance measures; and 

—maintaining a portfolio balance of near-, mid-, and long-term technology 

RD&D in each of the major sectors of our economy. 
146

FOSSIL ENERGY—DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION/IMPORTS

Question. First, I would like to commend the Department’s efforts to keep an eye 

on energy markets through the work of the Energy Information Administration. 

However, I am extremely concerned that the Department seemingly ignores its own 

information in the formulation of budget priorities. During the early stages of the 

recent war with Iraq, crude prices shot to $38 a barrel and have recently stabilized 

at a lower level. However, all indicators seem to illustrate crude prices are rising 

again and stocks are low. Can you update us on the current state of the highly fluctuating oil markets? 

Answer. We expect oil markets to continue to be volatile but well within the high 

and low limits established in the last two years. Supplies are dependent on the rate 

at which Iraqi exports return to market, the stability of West African production, 

recovery in Venezuela, the reaction of other non-OPEC producers to current prices 

and, of course, the level of exports from OPEC countries. Demand may also deviate 

from expectations, as the world’s economies grow at rates different from projections. 

Given the current level of oil inventories, news will tend to move prices up and 

down rather quickly, but we do not expect them to approach either the highs set 

earlier in 2003 or the lows reached in early 2002. 

Question. This Subcommittee has an acute interest in energy production, as most 

domestic production comes from land and waters under our jurisdiction, and the 

Fossil Energy portfolio under DOE requires our close attention due to the Administration’s lack of adequate commitment to domestic energy R&D. Can give us a sense 

of how current crude imports compare to prior years as a percentage of domestic 

consumption? 

Answer. In March 2003, the most recent month for which complete monthly data 

is currently available, the ratio of average U.S. crude oil imports to average domestic petroleum consumption (or products supplied) is estimated to have been 46.0 percent. The comparable percentage for March 2002 was 44.7 percent and for March 

2001 it was 48.3 percent. For the first three months of 2003, the ratio of average 

U.S. crude oil imports to average domestic petroleum consumption is estimated to 

have been 43.2 percent. The comparable percentage for the first three months of 

2002 was 45.6 percent and for the first three months of 2001 it was 46.4 percent. 

For the years 1997–2002, the ratio of the annual average U.S. crude oil imports to 

annual average domestic consumption ranged from a low of 44.2 percent in 1997 to 

a high of 47.5 percent in 2001, and for 2002 it was 46.3 percent. 

Question. It is my understanding the recent reductions in crude costs are directly 

related to increasing imports. Given these trends, can you explain why your budget 

reduces funding for the Fossil accounts focused on increasing domestic oil production by 65 percent from the enacted level? 

Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy has completed its Top to Bottom Review, and 

is beginning to implement it. The review provides a solid first step towards a new 

program direction, emphasizing results and focusing on customer groups in order to 

more effectively carry out the President’s energy plan to increase energy security 

and improve the environment through his Clear Skies and Climate Change initiatives. 

Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific goals of this 

new direction will be terminated. As stated in the President’s Management Agenda, 

spending large budgets without a clear goal does not necessarily achieve good results. 

These changes were also in part a response to the results of the Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the President’s Management Agenda 

initiative for better R&D Investment criteria. 

Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was completed for all 

program elements. Analysis of PART showed that the program did not link annual 

activities and outputs to long-term benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction. 

Question. Your own testimony before the House Interior Subcommittee last month 

states, ‘‘Previous oil program funding was spread thinly . . .’’ In my opinion reducing a ‘‘spreadly thin’’ [sic] budget by 65 percent when it is the primary budget focused on enhancing domestic oil recovery technologies seems a little haphazard at 

best. Can you reconcile this proposed reduction with your written testimony for the 

House and trends in domestic production? 

Answer. The completed Top to Bottom Review, conducted by the Office of Fossil 

Energy resulted in a new program direction, emphasizing results and focusing on 

customer groups in order to more effectively carry out the President’s energy plan 

to increase energy security and improve the environment through his Clear Skies 

and Climate Change initiatives. 
147

Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific goals of this 

new direction will be terminated. As stated in the President’s Management Agenda, 

spending large budgets without a clear goal does not necessarily achieve good results. 

These adjustments in the program’s investment portfolio were also in part a response to the results of the Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as 

part of the President’s Management Agenda initiative for better R&D Investment 

criteria. 

Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis completed for 

all program elements showed that the program did not link annual activities and 

outputs to long-term benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction. 

Question. An alarming highlight of last month was what appears to be an all-time 

monthly record for gasoline imports. It is bad enough to be dependent upon other 

nations for raw natural resources, but it is even more alarming that we now are 

becoming increasingly dependent upon foreign nations to produce refined product. 

Can you explain whether this dependency on foreign gasoline is an anomaly or part 

of a trend? 

Answer. In almost every year, gasoline demand increases. This increase can either 

be supplied by more production from refineries or increased gasoline imports. In recent years, suppliers have more economically increased supplies through the use of 

imports. There are several reasons for this. 

First, for many countries, they produce more gasoline than they can consume. In 

Europe, for instance, diesel fuel and other middle distillates are the most important 

part of the barrel, and thus, surplus gasoline is produced. With the United States 

being the world’s largest consumer of gasoline, it is thus not surprising that increasing amounts of gasoline arrive from Europe each year. In addition, if refiners were 

to increase gasoline production it would merely reduce the amount of other products 

that are produced, or else would require an increase in refinery throughput. The latter is an option only when refinery economics dictate that it would lead to increased 

income. This would usually require high product prices with comparatively lower 

crude oil prices. If, however, refiners kept the same throughput, but instead produced more gasoline at the expense of production of other petroleum products, that 

would dampen prospects for rebuilding low inventory levels for those products, e.g. 

distillate fuel. 

That being said, it is likely that product imports, including those for gasoline, will 

continue to increase over the next several years. Of course, the alternative is to get 

the increased supplies needed form a source that would be less economical, thus 

putting an additional strain on the U.S. economy. 

Question. What are the factors for this reliance and does the ongoing effort of the 

Department to divert domestic crude into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve have a 

tangible impact? 

Answer. North America and Europe have long been integrated markets for refined 

petroleum products. This integration has proved beneficial for both the United 

States and Europe, allowing the best possible utilization of refineries and inventories. At times the United States is an importer of products and at others it exports 

to Europe depending on market conditions. At the moment, Europe is increasing its 

consumption of diesel fuel relative to gasoline, thereby making its surplus gasoline 

available for export to the United States at reasonable prices. The fact that the 

Strategic Petroleum Reserve is acquiring crude oil probably has only a marginal impact on oil prices, and whatever that impact, it is the same for United States and 

foreign refiners. Therefore, whether the Strategic Petroleum Reserve acquires or 

does not acquire crude oil is immaterial to the level of U.S. imports of refined products. 

FOSSIL ENERGY—DOMESTIC GAS PRODUCTION/IMPORTS

Question. In February 2003, the gas markets were subject to unprecedented 

spikes as natural gas availability hit rock bottom. You’ll remember that when you 

were serving in the Senate, similar cost spikes hit the electricity markets, leading 

to public outcry and the subsequent failure of many businesses. Could you update 

us on the natural gas markets? 

Answer. Natural gas markets have recovered from the unprecedented spikes in 

February 2003 but they remain tight. Spot market natural gas prices were in the 

$5.24 to $6.24 range in May while natural gas inventories were at least 29 percent 

below the five-year average for this time of the year. Recent inventory additions 

have been at record-levels and the situation appears to be improving. However, the 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) projected in its June 2003 Short-Term Energy Outlook that natural gas prices will remain well above average; they are ex-
148

pected to average $5.50 to $6.00 per million Btu for the remainder of the year; 2004 

natural gas prices are expected to ease slightly. 

As I said at the time of that report, the nation’s stocks of natural gas in underground storage are unusually low due to weather factors and declines in both domestic production and net imports. Industry is already responding by significant increases in storage rates, with record net injections reported in each of the first two 

weeks of June, but a hot summer could increase demand for natural gas that may 

jeopardize storage refill, and thus, exacerbate the problem. 

I had previously asked the National Petroleum Council to conduct a study of natural gas in the United States that is expected to be released later this year but, 

in my view, we cannot wait to take action on the problem. Therefore, I have called 

for a special meeting on June 26 during which the National Petroleum Council will 

gather information, and discuss problems and solutions. 

Question. What steps are the Department taking to help alleviate these gas supply problems? 

Answer. In the near-term, we are working to better understand U.S. natural gas 

needs. In March 2002, we requested that the National Petroleum Council, an advisory body to the Secretary of Energy, conduct a comprehensive study of the North 

America natural gas market (supply, transmission, and demand issues through 

2025). The results of this study will be delivered in September of this year. 

We are also called on the Council to hold a National Gas Summit on June 26 to 

gather information from State and Federal officials, consumer groups, and industry 

experts, and discuss actions and develop recommendations that can be taken immediately to address the near-term natural gas situation. Among the measures expected to be discussed are those related to energy efficiency, conservation, and fuel 

switching. DOE will also publish a paper dealing with the issues associated with 

expanded supplies of natural gas from the Rocky Mountain region. 

Question. I know the Natural Gas Technologies accounts under Fossil Energy focuses on exploration and production techniques as well as developing advances in 

infrastructure to prevent failures and enhance delivery capabilities. Unfortunately 

your budget request suggests reducing these activities from $47 million to $26 million. Can you explain the disconnect between the information collected by your Department and the direction the Research and Development Accounts appear to be 

headed? 

Answer. The President’s Natural Gas Technology research and development program under Fossil Energy accounts is intended to complement and enrich the existing portfolio of ongoing industry sponsored natural gas research and help ensure 

that long-term, high-risk technology options in exploration and production, gas hydrates, natural gas storage, and delivery reliability are explored. 

The Office of Fossil Energy has completed its Top to Bottom Review, and is beginning to implement it. The review provides a solid first step towards a new program 

direction, emphasizing results and focusing on customer groups in order to more effectively carry out the President’s energy plan to increase energy security and improve the environment through his Clear Skies, Climate Change, and Energy Security initiatives. 

Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific goals of this 

new direction will be terminated. As stated in the President’s Management Agenda, 

spending large budgets without a clear Federal goal does not necessarily achieve 

good results. 

These changes were also in part a response to the results of the Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the President’s Management Agenda 

initiative for better R&D Investment criteria. 

The Office of Management and Budget’s analysis of Fossil Energy’s Natural Gas 

Technology Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) submissions showed that overall the Natural Gas Technology program did not successfully link annual activities 

and outputs to measurable long-term benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new 

program direction and a reduction in the fiscal year 2004 budget request for Fossil 

Energy’s Natural Gas Technology research and development program. 

Question. Your budget also proposes a ‘‘new’’ initiative to produce hydrogen from 

natural gas sources. Much like your testimony on the Oil Research Development accounts, I believe our natural gas infrastructure is spread too thin. The prior administration envisioned a world based on natural gas, but without backing the vision 

with investment in technology. I fear the current administration is doing the same. 

While we are shifting all this demand to natural gas, domestic production is not increasing at a similar rate. How to you believe we prevent a demand crunch in the 

natural gas markets without investing in new technology? 

Answer. The majority of the funding in our natural gas research program is directed to long-term technology development—where the government has a key role. 
149

These efforts will help ensure that adequate supplies of natural gas are available 

to meet the long-term increase in demand—about a 50 percent increase by 2025. 

Natural Gas Exploration and Production-Sustainable Supply program will provide 

new tools and technologies that can improve access, economics and environmental 

performance of onshore gas operations. Significant emphasis will be placed on public 

lands in the Rocky Mountain region where much of the nation’s undiscovered gas 

resource is located. 

Natural gas storage will also assume increasing significance as more power plants 

require consistent, year-round supplies of natural gas. A nationwide, industry-led 

consortium will develop ways to improve the reliability and efficiency of the nation’s 

gas storage system. 

Over the long-term, the production of natural gas from the U.S.’s vast deposits 

of methane hydrates, which is a program goal, could strengthen energy security and 

provide a major component of the Hydrogen Fuels Initiative. Understanding hydrates will also improve the scientific understanding of greenhouse gases and offer 

possible mechanisms for sequestering carbon dioxide. In the near-term, implications 

for drilling or producing oil and gas near or through hydrate formations will be defined, to avoid environmental issues that could arise with conventional oil and gas 

operations. 

The environmental science program will focus on defining and mitigating issues 

constraining produced water from coal bed methane production. 

Question. On the same topic, you list a new $6.5 million Hydrogen from Gas initiative under the Natural Gas Technology account. However, you reduce the Fuels 

account under Fossil Energy Research and Development from $31 million to $5 million. It is my understanding we were already performing substantial work in the 

Fuels budget that focused on hydrogen as a product. Could you detail how much 

DOE plans to focus on hydrogen production in the fiscal year 2003 Fossil Accounts? 

Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the Transportation Fuels & Chemicals budget line 

in the Fuels program request was $5 million for Syngas Membrane Technology 

(SMT) activity with an additional $17.1 million added by Congress to increase this 

activity and to support the ongoing Early Entrance Coproduction and Ultra Clean 

Fuels (UCF) programs, and the new Hydrogen from Coal Research (HCR) program. 

Since syngas is a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen and a few of the UCF 

projects produce syngas as an intermediate on the path to liquid fuels, it is fair to 

say that some of the Syngas Membrane Technology and UCF programs could be 

considered Hydrogen Programs. However, to be efficient, the projects would have to 

be modified with a substantial change in direction. Thus, the funding for fiscal year 

2003 that focuses on hydrogen as a product includes the new HCR (about $2.4 million), SMT (about $6 million), and UCF (about $5.4 million). 

FOSSIL ENERGY—FUELS

Question. Mr. Secretary, I am interested in your decision to essentially stop all 

advanced research in the Fossil program. For fiscal year 2003, Congress provided 

$31 million to continue research aimed at developing cleaner fuels from domestic 

fossil sources including coal, gas and petroleum. The strides made in producing new 

fuel products such as ultra clean diesel have given hope that we can produce and 

use much cleaner burning fossil fuels in the near term. Can you explain why you 

believe we should abandon research that is arguably on the verge of creating marketable solutions to near term environmental concerns? 

Answer. The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2004 of $5 million for the 

Fuels/Transportation Fuels and Chemicals program is to perform supporting research for the Administration’s FutureGen and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives. In addition, $6.55 million is being requested in the Natural Gas Technologies program—

Emerging Processing Technology budget to support research on natural gas to hydrogen as part of the Administration’s Hydrogen Fuels Initiative. The Department 

believes that this budget request is appropriate to support a balanced energy research program within the budget constraints in fiscal year 2004. In addition, considerable work is being conducted in the private sector on natural gas to liquids 

processes and we believe that industry is prepared to meet the promulgated EPA 

Tier II standards. The Department believes that research dollars would be better 

spent in longer-term fuels research such as that which is associated with the production, storage and delivery of hydrogen from coal and natural gas. 

Question. You assert in your request that portions of the fuel programs proposed 

for elimination have been shifted to the Oil and Gas programs, which have been reduced by 65 percent and 44 percent respectively. Could you show the Subcommittee 

where exactly this research shows up in the Oil and Gas programs, and explain 

what level of funding will be provided under your proposal for fiscal year 2004? 
150

Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the Fuels Program provides funding for both natural 

gas and coal based programs even though the Fuels Budget line is found in the Coal 

& Power Systems budget. However, in fiscal year 2004, the Fuels activities, which 

are related to production and delivery of hydrogen, will be split into two budget 

lines, one will remain in the coal program under Fuels and the other program activity will be moved to the Oil and Gas Program under the Emerging Process Technology activity in the Natural Gas Program. In fiscal year 2004, $6.555 million has 

been provided for this budget area. 

Question. Will all ongoing contracts continue at the level of funding agreed to by 

the contractors and DOE? 

Answer. The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2004 of $5 million for the 

Fuels/Transportation Fuels and Chemicals program is for conducing research activities to develop advanced, lower cost technology for the production of hydrogen from 

coal for the Administration’s FutureGen and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives. In addition, 

$6.55 million is being requested in the Natural Gas Technologies program—Emerging Processing Technology budget to support research on advanced, lower cost natural gas to hydrogen technology, which is also part of the Administration’s Hydrogen Fuels Initiative. The Department believes that the budget requests are appropriate to support a balanced energy research program within the budget constraints 

in fiscal year 2004. To the extent that funds are available, it is planned to continue 

those projects that can adjust their scopes of work to fit the new longer-term program goals. However, it is not likely that all contracts can be continued. 

FOSSIL ENERGY—DISTRIBUTED GENERATION—FUEL CELLS—VISION 21—HYBRIDS

Question. Mr. Secretary, I have long been a proponent of fuel cell technology and 

am as frustrated as anyone else is with our inability to mass-produce fuel cells at 

a price point that makes them commercially viable to most markets. Your proposal 

to reduce the Vision 21 Hybrids account by $8.4 million peaks my interest as the 

Department has long touted the wonders of the Vision 21 program. With a reduction 

of this amount, I can only imagine one of two outcomes. Either we have hit the price 

point and these units are ready for mass development, or the technology has underperformed and DOE is making the decision to abandon the program. I don’t believe 

we have Vision 21 Hybrids being produced commercially, so can you explain the decision that led to the reduction in this program? 

Answer. The $13.5 million for Vision 21 Hybrids in the fiscal year 2003 budget 

is for the completion of DOE-funded work on tubular solid oxide fuel cell systems 

and fuel cell/turbine hybrid systems. The fiscal year 2004 budget request of $5 million supports a redirected Vision 21 enabling cost reduction and performance enhancement program to emphasize SECA-based low-cost, Vision 21 fuel cell/turbine 

hybrid and Vision 21 zero-emissions system concepts. 

Question. Are we on target with the goals set by DOE and will we continue on 

target at this funding level? 

Answer. The Department’s goals for tubular solid oxide fuel cell turbine hybrids 

systems will be achieved with the conclusion of activities in fiscal year 2003. Tests 

on a first-of-a-kind tubular solid oxide fuel cell/turbine hybrid system have contributed valuable design knowledge that will be used in the next phase of the Vision 

21 hybrids program, which is focused on SECA-based hybrid systems. The funds 

proposed for fiscal year 2004 are appropriate for the re-directed effort focused on 

SECA-type fuel cells. 

FOSSIL ENERGY—DISTRIBUTED GENERATION—FUEL CELLS—SOLID STATE ELECTRICITY

CONVERSION ALLIANCE (SECA)

Question. Mr. Secretary, I am extremely interested in the SECA program and am 

watching its progress with high hopes. I know that DOE has recently decided to add 

two new industry teams to the program, yet has proposed reducing funding for the 

core program from $33.8 million to $23.5 million. I am concerned that reducing the 

funding and trying to support additional teams will cause the program to slow, 

when it is poised to make great strides. Additionally, it is my understanding some 

teams may be under performing, and some of the competing technologies may show 

little promise for future development. Can you update the Subcommittee on the 

progress of the SECA program and explain how you propose allocating resources in 

fiscal year 2004 to ensure we are providing sufficient resources to the teams showing the most promise? 

Answer. The Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) Program is progressing extremely well with implementation as planned and promised. The SECA 

industry teams are making good progress towards their Phase 1 performance targets for prototype demonstrations in fiscal year 2005/fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 
151

2003, the second full year for the initial four industry teams, the teams have built, 

tested, and evaluated small single ‘‘button’’ cells, completed designs for multi-cell 

stacks, improved performance, and reduced proof of concept volume. The new industry teams represent design alternatives that will enhance the prospects of success 

of SECA fuel cells for a broader market. 

The Department is requesting in fiscal year 2004, $33 million for the SECA Program from several research budget elements. Primary funding of $23.5 million will 

be provided from the Distributed Generation Fuel Cells Innovative Concepts budget 

line. This funding will be primarily for the six industry teams. In addition, $6.0 million for SECA from Fuel Cells Advanced Research will be used for the SECA core 

technology program, $1.5 million for SECA from Advanced Research—for research 

on materials for coal-based SECA systems, and $2.0 million for SECA from Advanced Metallurgical Research (Albany), for metallurgical research applicable to 

general SECA systems. 

NAVAL PETROLEUM AND OIL SHALE RESERVES—ROCKY MOUNTAIN OIL TECHNOLOGY

CENTER (RMOTC)

Question. I notice the Naval Petroleum Account proposes closing the Rocky Mountain Oil Technology Center (RMOTC). Could you provide the committee with the 

number of industry proposals to partner with this facility for each of the past five 

years? 

Answer. RMOTC received 151 proposals from fiscal year 1999 through the current 

fiscal year 2003. These proposals were from a variety of small businesses, major industry leaders, and international consortia and cover testing related to: drilling 

technology, coal bed methane, oil shale production, enhanced oil recovery, CO2 sequestration, produced water management, environmental rehabilitation, renewable 

energy development, homeland security, reservoir services and flow assurance. The 

proposals are broken down accordingly; 25 in fiscal year 1999; 25 in fiscal year 2000; 

31 in fiscal year 2001; 29 in fiscal year 2002; and 41 fiscal year 2003 (YTD). 

Question. It is my understanding industry partnerships to promote advanced oil 

recovery utilize this center with great success. I am also aware of renewed interest 

by industry to re-examine the potential of oil shale production. If we were to follow 

your recommendation to reduce the oil program by 65 percent and close RMOTC, 

what other avenues are available for independent producers to partner with DOE 

to research avenues of increasing domestic production? 

Answer. The President’s budget does request $41.6 million for research and development in oil and natural gas, and that money will be targeted to the most promising opportunities. We hope that industry will independently increase its funding 

for recovery research, which would be appropriate, and the Administration supports 

across the board tax incentives for R&D and investment in domestic production of 

all kinds. An important action the Government could undertake is to increase access 

to lands for oil and gas exploration resulting in increased domestic production without any cost to taxpayers. 

If the Center were closed, those activities would have to be conducted at private 

facilities such the Gas Technology Institute’s Catoosa test facility in Oklahoma. 

Question. Is it your belief DOE holds no responsibility to work with industry to 

advance domestic fossil fuel production? 

Answer. The Department of Energy supports private industry development of domestic fossil fuels in every way. We are committed to research to increase the recoverable resource base of oil and natural gas and research to reduce the cost of production and protect the environment. We have a national laboratory working on 

ways to mitigate the environmental impacts of fuels production and consumption. 

We support tax and regulatory changes that would encourage domestic energy production, and we support making Federal lands available for exploration and development of fossil fuels. The Department of Energy fully supports the Administration’s National Energy Plan, which makes explicit its support for more domestic energy production of every type. 

FOSSIL ENERGY—FUTUREGEN

Question. Mr. Secretary, we talked a little bit about the FutureGen proposal when 

you came to see me earlier this week. Montanans are very excited about this project 

and my office has been working with our Governor’s office and a large group of other 

entities wanting to make sure Montana is given full consideration as a possible site 

for the project. Can I have your assurance the Department will work with me and 

the State of Montana to make sure Montana’s unique geographic and geological offerings are taken into full consideration as the site selection process moves forward? 
152

Answer. I can assure you that we will be glad to work with Montana, and any 

other interested states, to ensure that the FutureGen site selection process will be 

a fair and open competitive process. Montana will be given full consideration, along 

with other sites proposed for evaluation. 

SOLID STATE LIGHTING

Question. In reply to: believe you’re aware of the Solid State Lighting Initiative, 

which this subcommittee supported last year with an appropriation of $3 million. 

Your budget request includes $5 million for this program, which has significant 

promise in terms of energy savings, environmental benefits, and lower costs to consumers. I understand that the Department has investigated and calculated these potential benefits while developing a ‘‘Road Map’’ for the solid-state lighting program. 

Would you share with the Committee the Department’s conclusions? 

Answer. The Department believes that solid state lighting has the potential to 

create the technical foundation to revolutionize the energy efficiency, appearance, 

visual comfort, and quality of lighting products for general illumination by achieving 

efficiencies upwards of 70 percent (source efficiency). In consultation with industry, 

the Department has estimated long-term benefits, which include annual savings of 

nearly 40 percent of lighting energy and $19 billion in consumer expenditures by 

2020. As with all benefits modeling, the assumptions have a large impact on the 

results. Because modeling procedures and assumptions used to generate this estimate are different from those used in EERE GPRA models, we cannot directly compare the estimated benefits of this initiative to other EERE or other Departmental 

applied R&D activities. But we intend to improve the consistency in our modeling 

efforts. As a stand-alone document, the multi-sector forecast, Energy Savings Potential of Solid State Lighting in General Illumination Applications, is available at: 

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/documents/. 

As solid state lighting represents the most promising approach to more efficient 

lighting systems of the future, success in the initiative will retain the technology 

base and jobs in the United States (while facing increased product competition from 

Pacific Rim corporations supported by their governments) and will widely enable 

more efficient lighting systems to be applied widely. The potential for such technology is quite significant, given the very low performance characteristics of present 

incandescent (1 percent efficient in delivered, useful light) and fluorescent systems 

(20 percent). 

The Department has held seven workshops over the past two years to plan out 

a broad agenda for research and development focused on improving the performance 

of compound semiconductor science in the application of general illumination. More 

than 300 participants attended these workshops (including the conventional lighting 

industry, compound semiconductor industry, academia, National Labs, research institutions, and other government agencies). In general, R&D is necessary in several 

areas: quantum efficiency, lifetime, performance, packaging, infrastructure, and first 

cost. The most recent summary document on this research agenda, The Promise of 

Solid State Lighting for General Illumination, is available at: www.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/documents/. 

SOLID STATE LIGHTING

Question. How far has this technology developed and what is the nature of the 

research that has to be concluded? 

Answer. Solid state lighting (SSL) exists today in a monochromatic form (i.e. single color such as red or green). Currently, SSL is used for ‘‘exit’’ signs and traffic 

control lights, and offers several attributes beyond energy savings, such as durability and longer lifetime. Additionally, the auto industry is converting incandescent 

lamps applications to solid state devices (e.g. LED tail lights). To save significant 

energy, the science and engineering of SSL needs to mature in several performance 

metrics to be capable of competing in the general illumination market with high 

quality white light, which is the focus of the DOE SSL research. 

White light SSL is in its infancy, with many prototypes in the 5 to 10 lumens 

per Watt (LPW) range. Newer prototypes perform in the 15 to 25 LPW range, about 

what an incandescent can do. Future research needs cover six concept areas: 

Efficiency.—The ability of solid state light sources to convert electrons into photons is governed by three basic elements: (1) materials systems; (2) internal quantum efficiencies (IQE); and (3) external quantum efficiencies (EQE). Materials system research evaluates semiconductor materials, studying the performance and limitations of materials. IQE measures a material’s ability to convert electron-hole 

pairs into photonic emissions, and is largely a function of the material system se-
153

lected. EQE measures the amount of light that leaves the semiconductor device and 

is available for collection and use. 

Lifetime.—Technologies lasting in excess of 50,000 hours are sought. SSL research 

will focus on advancing our basic science understanding of the role of impurities, 

defects, crystal structure and other factors closely related to materials systems 

choices. 

Lighting Performance.—(a) basic material properties and (b) semiconductor physics directly impact the evolution of photon wavelength, emission bandwidth and ultimately, color. For the future, emission spectrum approaching the spectral power distribution of natural sunlight is required. 

Device Design.—Research will focus on (a) geometrical optical engineering and (b) 

optical simulation within the compound semiconductor—increases of 5 to 10 times 

present levels of optical coupling are predicted. Research on structures of the individual layers of materials will be required, as will integration of the substrate geometry and optics. 

Packaging.—Investigate packaging requirements such as sealing out moisture and 

oxygen, managing heat transfer, and protecting optical material from UV degradation. SSL technology will assemble them into an optimized light delivery system. 

Manufacturing.—Research will concentrate on significant first cost reduction 

through aggressive development of suitable manufacturing technologies and technical elements of the distribution infrastructure, such as technology standards. 

CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE (NCCTI)

Question. The budget request includes $40 million for a new Climate Change 

Technology Initiative; $23 million of which is funded through this subcommittee. 

Why is it necessary to establish a new, separate program for this purpose? 

Answer. The President’s National Climate Change Technology Initiative Competitive Solicitation program is intended to complement and enrich the existing portfolio 

of ongoing research throughout the Federal government and help to ensure that all 

possible technology options are explored. The program is unique and warranted because funding will be allocated solely on the basis of the potential for a technology 

to contribute in significant ways future reductions or avoidances of greenhouse gas 

emissions, and/or their capture and sequestration (permanent storage). No program, 

past or present, has made technology-neutral funding allocations in this manner. In 

general, successful proposals would be focused on novel approaches for contributing 

to broader technological goals, or on innovative ways of solving or circumventing 

technical barriers to progress along a plausible line of technology development 

Question. Weren’t climate change objectives already folded into many of the Department’s R&D programs like the Carbon Sequestration program within the Office 

of Fossil Energy? 

Answer. Many of the existing DOE R&D programs aim to provide multiple public 

benefits such as increased energy security, reduced emissions of pollutants, and reduced emissions of carbon dioxide. The purpose of the NCCTI program is to focus 

solely on potential climate change benefits. In doing so, we expect to identify R&D 

opportunities that complement and enrich existing R&D programs. The responses 

to the NCCTI Request For Information, released in November 2002 and closed in 

January 2003, suggest that there are certain categories of novel concepts (e.g., crosscutting evaluation methodologies, research that does not clearly fall into the basic 

or applied research areas) that show great promise for reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions and that are unlikely to be eligible for or selected in procurements conducted under existing DOE programs. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR PETE V. DOMENICI

CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE

Question. I compliment the Administration on continuing its commitment to the 

Clean Coal Power Initiative and Coal Research initiative in the fiscal year 2004 

budget with a request of $320.5 million overall. I firmly believe that we should capitalize on our two greatest strengths in electricity supply—coal and nuclear. In both 

cases, we should address risk areas. I’d like to ensure that the coal initiatives would 

address issues associated with mining as well as the subsequent combustion processes. For example, a small New Mexico company in Raton has worked with Russian institutes, through the Department’s Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention 

program, to develop instruments that allow remarkable refinement in how coal is 

mined. This instrument, which actually mounts on the drill head, enables the drill 

to automatically leave the last few inches at the top and bottom of a coal seam. The 
154

majority of the serious heavy metal contaminants in the seam are concentrated at 

the edges of the seam; thus this new tool allows dramatically cleaner coal to be 

mined. When burned, that coal then burns much more cleanly. I continue to believe 

that we should focus on coal at the source in the coal R&D program and in the 

Clean Coal Power initiative. Mr. Secretary, does the Clean Coal Power Initiative include opportunities for advancing exciting new technologies like this, no matter 

what part of the overall coal utilization cycle they impact? 

Answer. The current structure of the Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) focuses 

on demonstrating advanced technologies that will provide clean, efficient, reliable 

and affordable electricity from coal. In order for a technology to qualify for consideration under CCPI, it must be proposed as part of an integrated power system that 

utilizes clean coal. If a proposed technology, associated with another part of the coal 

utilization cycle (such as mining), is integrated into the coal power system, it could 

be considered under CCPI. 

OIL AND GAS RESEARCH

Question. I’m very disappointed to note that oil and natural gas technology research and development funds were again sharply cut in the Administration’s budget. Oil technology R&D is reduced by nearly 65 percent below the fiscal year 2003 

enacted level (from $42.3 million to $15 million in the President’s request), and natural gas R&D is reduced by nearly 44 percent from ($47.3 million to $26.3 million 

in the President’s request). These two energy sources play major roles in current 

national energy supplies. In New Mexico, I’ve noted how improved extraction technologies, which depend on continued research and development, have helped to 

boost production of old wells. The Senate bill would support R&D of the type done 

at the Petroleum Recovery Research Center at New Mexico Institute of Mining and 

Technology in Socorro. How would the Administration’s reduced budget for oil technologies impact ongoing strong R&D programs, such as this one at New Mexico 

Tech? 

Answer. The proposed budget would have no impact on the Petroleum Recovery 

Research Center at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in Socorro, as 

there are no outstanding mortgages on projects with this institution. The proposed 

fiscal year 2004 budget does require the elimination of $5.9 million for projects 

being conducted at other universities. However, only $1.3 million is for projects that 

support the newly aligned oil program. This shortfall will be addressed by extending 

the projects over a longer period of time. 

The new direction for the oil program resulting from a complete strategic review 

of the program, emphasizes results and focuses on customer groups in order to more 

effectively carry out the President’s energy plan to increase energy security and improve the environment through his Clear Skies and Climate Change initiatives. 

These changes were also in part a response to the results of the Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the President’s Management Agenda 

initiative for better R&D Investment criteria. 

Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was completed for all 

program elements. Analysis of PART showed that the program did not link annual 

activities and outputs to long-term benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction. 

Question. What is the Administration’s rationale for nearly terminating these 

R&D programs as the nation makes a comprehensive effort to increase our energy 

security and independence through reducing dependence on foreign sources and developing new sources of domestic energy? 

Answer. The Office of Fossil Energy has completed its Top to Bottom Review, and 

is beginning to implement it. The review provides a solid first step towards a new 

program direction, emphasizing results and focusing on customer groups in order to 

more effectively carry out the President’s energy plan to increase energy security 

and improve the environment through his Clear Skies and Climate Change initiatives. 

Certain program areas and projects that do not address the specific goals of this 

new direction will be terminated. As stated in the President’s Management Agenda, 

spending large budgets without a clear goal does not necessarily achieve good results. 

These changes were also in part a response to the results of the Investment Criteria Scorecards that were completed as part of the President’s Management Agenda 

initiative for better R&D Investment criteria. 

Additionally, the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) was completed for all 

program elements. Analysis of PART showed that the program did not link annual 
155

activities and outputs to long-term benefits. These outcomes reinforced the new program direction. 

OIL AND GAS—FEDERAL TRANSMISSION SITING

Question. Congestion and inadequate transmission infrastructure has an impact 

on consumers. The Electric Power Research Institute estimated that transmission 

reliability losses cost the economy $120 billion annually. Contained in S. 14 is a provision to accelerate the permitting of transmission lines across federal lands. The 

provision requires the Department of Energy to take the lead in coordinating the 

federal permitting efforts in order to accelerate and improve the siting process. Do 

you believe that DOE can assist in this role and reduce the time and costs associated with permitting transmission facilities? 

Answer. The process for obtaining permits for transmission lines across federal 

lands has been a major source of delay and unnecessary cost in the development 

of new transmission projects, particularly in the West where much of the land is 

federally owned. Better coordination is needed among a wide range of parties, including project developers, state agencies, Native American tribes, and federal agencies. DOE is well positioned to help facilitate this coordination. 

FUEL CELLS

Question. The Administration’s proposed initiatives for fuel cells and hydrogen 

R&D have been very well received in the scientific community and in the Congress. 

The FreedomCAR and FreedomFuel proposals would receive about $235 million in 

the Energy Conservation budget specifically to work on vehicle technologies ($157.6 

million) and fuel cell technologies ($77.5 million). Another $88 million would go to 

hydrogen technology R&D through the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

budget. These initiatives hold great hope for this nation to move away from our 

heavy reliance on petroleum products for transportation. 

Mr. Secretary, you know of my strong support for moving toward a hydrogen economy, but I have some concerns about the mix of the program between essential R&D 

and demonstration programs. A recent letter report of the National Research Council raised this issue essentially saying that in its assessment the number of fuel cell 

demonstration projects seem to be getting ahead of our progress on essential fuel 

cell R&D. Mr. Secretary, do you share my concern that we need more fundamental 

R&D to make progress on fuel cell technology? 

Answer. The April 4, 2003 interim letter report from the National Academy of 

Sciences (NAS) recommended that fundamental and exploratory research should receive additional budgetary emphasis, and the DOE should develop a careful plan for 

evaluating, funding, and validating emerging technologies for hydrogen production, 

transportation, storage, and end-use. Within the background, the interim report 

stated that, when properly used, demonstrations have a place in a balanced research program because they can lead to cost reductions and accelerate the development of codes, standards, environmental permitting, and strategies for inspection 

and monitoring. But, demonstrations also risk distorting budgets and diverting effort toward technology with limited potential. Development of a careful plan for 

funding and evaluating demonstrations to address this risk will serve the public interest. 

Since the time of the NAS letter, the DOE Office of Science (SC) hosted a workshop to determine the basic science needs that support hydrogen and fuel cell technology development. SC is currently developing a research plan based on the outcomes of that workshop. The DOE plan is based on the Hydrogen Vision and Roadmap that were developed in collaboration with over 200 technical experts. The current DOE plan includes 80 percent of funding for research and development and 20 

percent of funding for technology validation. These technology validation projects 

are cost-shared 50/50 by industry partners. Strong leveraging of Federal dollars indicates private sector support of the RD&D pathway we have outlined and that our 

research validation approach is sound. The results of technology validation are critical to refining and directing future research and development efforts. 

Question. What is your assessment of the progress of R&D on liquid hydrogen, 

compressed gas, and on several carrier fuels that would transport hydrogen in vehicles? 

Answer. Liquid and compressed hydrogen tanks are relatively mature technologies that are suitable for near-term demonstrations of hydrogen-powered vehicles. Development of pressurized insulated vessels has reduced evaporative losses in 

liquid tanks. However, liquid tanks do not meet the volume targets for on-board 

storage and liquefying hydrogen incurs a sizable energy penalty. Development of 

low-permeation liners, high-strength fibers, and conformable tanks has led to fab-
156

rication of 5,000 and 10,000 psi gaseous hydrogen tanks. However, these compressed 

gas tanks do not result in the required 300-mile range while also meeting vehicle 

weight and space requirements. Therefore, the long-term effort of the DOE program 

will be the development of low-pressure, solid-state materials that store hydrogen, 

such as carbon nanotubes, hydrides and alanates. 

Question. What in your view is the appropriate mix of fuel cell R&D and demonstration projects? 

Answer. Every research activity must be evaluated with consideration to its own 

particular factors, including the state of research progress. At this point, we believe 

that an 80/20 fuel cell R&D/demonstration mix, where demonstration projects require a minimum 50 percent cost share by industry, is appropriate. 

Question. I note that researchers at Los Alamos National Lab continue to make 

great progress in fuel cell research and are poised to be a center of excellence in 

this area. I believe the nation needs this center to integrate a number of separate 

specialties to more efficiently develop commercially-ready fuel cell systems. Previous 

budget submissions led me to believe this was also part of the Administration’s 

thinking. What is the Department’s current position on establishing a national fuel 

cell research center? 

Answer. We appreciate the major advances that Los Alamos National Laboratory 

(LANL) has made in polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells and that they 

hold seminal patents in the field. For example, LANL scientists were responsible 

for achieving the breakthrough that allowed a 90 percent reduction in the platinum 

required by fuel cell electrodes. This breakthrough significantly lowered the cost of 

PEM fuel cells and stimulated the large-scale automotive industry investment that 

exists today. 

With respect to establishing a national center for fuel cell research, the Department is currently studying this concept. 

Question. What level of funding for fuel cells could be effectively utilized to advance this exciting technology as rapidly as possible? 

Answer. The Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy Fuel Cells 

Programs are working with partners to accelerate the development and successful 

market introduction of these technologies. 

In fiscal year 2004, the Fossil Energy Budget Request is $44.5 million for the continuation of the entire program, with emphasis on the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) where efforts are underway to drastically reducing fuel cell 

costs to make them more broadly applicable and widespread commodity in the competitive, mature distributed generation and auxiliary power markets. Funding at 

the requested level will allow six competing SECA industry teams and about 19 core 

technology participants to advance the technology at an accelerated pace. 

In fiscal year 2004, the Energy Efficiency and Renewal Energy (EERE) budget request is $77.5 million for development of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells 

in support of the President’s FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. This request level is appropriate for EERE’s planned fuel cell R&D and is consistent with 

our technology roadmap plans. Research in membranes, electrodes, fuel processing 

and system components will lead to $30/kW engine costs, 60 percent energy efficiency and 5,000 hours durability on hydrogen. Fiscal year 2004 funding for fuel 

cells and hydrogen is the first year of the President’s Initiative, which will accelerate commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 15 years to 2015. 

HIGH TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY

Question. If I could change subjects for a moment, I would like to ask you about 

the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget, and high temperature superconductivity R&D. It is my sense that within DOE there is support to move into 

grid-level demonstration projects to begin effective utilization by utilities of hightemperature superconductivity technology for more reliable supplies of electricity. 

The request of $76.9 million for electricity reliability activities is 9 percent below 

the $85 million approved for fiscal year 2003 and does not move us in that direction. 

Answer. Within the $76.9 million request, there are significant grid-level demonstration projects that will be more visible in fiscal year 2004 in which utilities 

will begin effective utilization of high temperature superconductivity. The most notable is a planned Long Island installation of a superconducting transmission power 

cable able to serve 300,000 homes. This could lead to a future superconductivity 

‘‘backbone’’ being put in place to supply electricity to most of Long Island. Similar 

projects are planned in Albany, NY, and Columbus, OH. Our intent is to move as 

rapidly as possible to effective utilization of several types of grid technologies (transmission and distribution cables, transformers, generators, and fault current limiters) 
157

while maintaining research on higher capacity, cost-effective, superconducting wires 

and other key enabling technologies. 

Question. What is the major thrust of the Department’s fiscal year 2004 budget 

proposal for high-temperature superconductivity? 

Answer. In the Department’s fiscal year 2004 budget proposal for high-temperature superconductivity, the major thrust is to improve Second Generation superconducting wire (longer lengths, higher capacity, lower-cost processing) through collaboration of university, national laboratory, and private company scientists; while 

simultaneously moving as rapidly as possible to effective utilization of transmission 

and distribution cables by installing and testing different cable types in the electric 

grid. The latter work is carried out by industry teams consisting of a utility, cable 

manufacturer, superconducting wire supplier as well as special expertise from the 

national labs and universities. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT C. BYRD

TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER—CLEAN ENERGY TECHNOLOGY EXPORT (CETE)

Question. Mr. Secretary, Congress has urged the Administration to support increased opportunities to open and expand international energy markets and export 

U.S. clean energy technologies to developing countries and other nations abroad. 

These efforts are very important to helping meet our own energy security needs 

while at the same time addressing related economic, job creation, trade, environmental, and climate change objectives. Additionally, such efforts could significantly 

aid in meeting other nations’ infrastructure and development needs while also increasing the deployment of a range of U.S. clean energy technologies, including 

clean coal technologies. The Clean Energy Technology Exports (CETE) Initiative will 

help meet that challenge. It had its genesis within the Senate Appropriations Committee and has had broad bipartisan support. The administration has talked about 

such ideas on occasion, but despite such rhetoric, the participating federal agencies 

have done little, if anything, to implement the strategic plan. It seems you are just 

sitting on your hands and missing a critical opportunity. Because the Department 

of Energy is a leading agency involved in the implementation of the CETE Initiative 

as called for by the Congress and released by the Administration in October 2002, 

what specific actions is your agency taking to work with the other federal agencies 

and engage non-governmental organizations, private sector companies, and other 

international partners with regard to this plan? 

Answer. The Department is involved in many activities with other federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, private sector companies and international 

partners to expand the market for clean energy technologies. One such effort is the 

current joint working group on U.S.-China Olympic cooperation. This cooperative effort is consistent with CETE objectives and aims to deploy clean energy technologies 

for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, by facilitating U.S. industry interest in the 

Chinese market, and promoting U.S.-made equipment and services while protecting 

the global environment. One of the eleven areas of mutual interest for cooperation 

is clean coal technology. To this end, the Department’s Office of Fossil Energy has 

developed a plan to: use U.S. NOX Control Technologies for Beijing region power 

plants; jointly design coal preparation plants; and reach out to U.S. industry on 

business opportunities. 

Question. Can you tell me when the Appropriations Committee will receive the 

required annual CETE strategic plan progress report that was due to this committee on March 1, 2003? 

Answer. The Department expects to submit the CETE report to the Congress by 

the end of July 2003. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTING

Question. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and Secretary Abraham, thank you for coming. I am interested to hear your answers to many subjects 

important to Californians. Among them are the Administration’s position on the use 

and development of low-yield nuclear weapons; banning fraud and manipulation in 

the energy sector; and the President’s hydrogen fuel and fuel cell car proposals in 

the fiscal year 2004 Department of Energy Budget. First and foremost, I want to 

focus on the Administration’s position on the use and development of low-yield nuclear weapons. The President is right that the greatest threat facing the United 
158

States lies in the global proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and terrorist 

access to those weapons. But I am deeply concerned that by appearing to focus its 

national security strategy on its nuclear arsenal, current U.S. policy may well actually encourage proliferation, alienate our friends and allies, and promote a backlash 

against the United States. Instead of ratcheting back on our reliance on nuclear 

weapons with the Cold War over, the administration seems to be looking for new 

ways to use our nuclear advantage to restructure our forces so that they are more 

‘‘usable’’—blurring the lines between nuclear and conventional forces and legitimizing the idea that nuclear weapons can be used. 

Like it or not, the United States sets the pace when it comes to international 

norms regarding nuclear weapons, and, in fact, just considering the use of these 

weapons much less actually using them threatens to undermine our efforts to stop 

proliferation and makes us less safe, not more. 

The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, released in January 2002, stressed 

the importance of being prepared to use nuclear weapons. The review noted that we 

must plan to possibly use them against a wider range of countries. And it said that 

we need to develop new types of weapons so that we can use them in a wider variety 

of circumstances. According to press reports the review also explicitly listed seven 

nations Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and North Korea against which the 

United States should be prepared to use nuclear weapons even though most of those 

nations do not have nuclear weapons themselves. That means the Administration 

is contemplating the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict. 

Indeed, a few months after issuing the nuclear posture review, President Bush 

signed National Security Presidential Directive-17, which, according to press reports, abandons a bipartisan policy of ambiguity and explicitly says that the United 

States might use nuclear weapons to respond to a chemical or biological attack. 

Clearly the administration seems to be moving toward a military posture in which 

nuclear weapons are considered just like other weapons in which their purpose is 

not simply to serve as a deterrent but as a usable instrument of military power, 

like a tank, a fighter aircraft, or a cruise missile. 

I believe that such an approach is not in our nation’s interest, nor is it consistent 

with our standards and values. A first use of nuclear weapons by the United States 

should be unthinkable, and responding to a non-nuclear attack with nuclear weapons violates a central tenet of just war and U.S. military tradition. There is no question that in the post 9/11 era a full range of policy options for dealing with new 

and uncertain events should be on the table. But in my view, nuclear options should 

not be considered as an extension of conventional options because this inevitably 

lowers the threshold for use. 

So, if the United States is seeking to develop nuclear weapons which blur the distinction between conventional and nuclear forces and lowers the threshold for the 

possible use of these weapons, we must consider the message that this sends to the 

rest of the world. I believe that it is critical that the United States sets a very high 

international standard for nuclear restraint. If we do not, we may well encourage 

others to develop their own standards and their own nuclear arsenals. 

Using nuclear weapons, even ‘‘small’’ ones, would cross a line that has remained 

sacrosanct for almost 60 years. Using a small nuclear weapon makes the use of all 

nuclear weapons more permissible it legitimizes their use and legitimizing nuclear 

weapons promotes their spread. It also puts us in greater danger should we ever 

have to fight a nuclear power. 

Moreover, there is no real evidence that the United States needs to use nuclear 

weapons in the scenarios outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review or NSPD 17. 

The most often-cited need for new nuclear weapons is to destroy underground 

bunkers. But the most important factor in destroying a deeply buried target is 

knowing exactly where it is. And if we know exactly where it is, we can either destroy it with conventional weapons or deny access to it by destroying entrances and 

air ducts. 

Earlier this year, at an Energy Committee Hearing, I asked you whether Secretary Rumsfeld had been quoted correctly in The Washington Post, on the 20th of 

February, when he said that the Administration had no plans to develop new lowyield nuclear weapons. You said yes, he had been quoted correctly, that the Administration was only studying adaptations of existing weapons. 

This week on the Floor of the Senate I offered an amendment to strike the controversial provision in the Defense Authorization Bill that will end a 10-year-old ban 

on research and development of low yield nuclear weapons. 

The Defense Authorization Bill would repeal the decade old ‘‘Spratt-Furse’’ provision, which bans all development leading to the production of nuclear weapons with 

yields of fewer than five kilotons. I believe this prohibition should remain in full 

force because repealing it: 
159

—Provides the United States no military benefit; 

—Could lead to the resumption of nuclear testing; 

—Undermines efforts to halt the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction; 

and 

—Blurs the line between conventional and nuclear weapons. 

Now that the ban will be repealed, what are the exact plans for the Administration’s study, development, and testing of low-yield nuclear weapons? 

Answer. The Department has no research currently under way to develop lowyield or other new nuclear weapons at the Department’s nuclear weapon design laboratories. However, the Department of Defense and Department of Energy have 

begun a two to three-year study on potential modifications to current stockpile gravity bombs, the B61 and the B83. The study, known as the Robust Nuclear Earth 

Penetrator (RNEP) phase 6.2 study, will assess the feasibility, design definition, and 

cost for modifications of providing a robust earth penetrating weapon to address the 

threat posed by hard and deeply buried facilities. 

The RNEP concept is being studied as one of a number of possible means to deal 

with emerging threats. Development, production and fielding of the RNEP concept 

would not require nuclear testing. 

There has been no decision to move the RNEP to engineering development. 

Should this occur in the future, the Department of Energy would request funds from 

Congress as a separate budget line item, consistent with Section 3143 of Public 

Law. 107–314, in the President’s budget request for that year. 

I appreciate your observation that ‘‘a full range of policy options for dealing with 

new and uncertain contingencies should be on the table.’’ I believe that the Department’s work will not blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons. I also encourage you to seek the views of the Department of Defense on the 

issues you raise regarding military utility of low-yield weapons and their potential 

contribution to the deterrent. 

Question. What exactly will you do differently when this Defense Authorization 

Bill is passed? 

Answer. Repeal of the prohibitions of Spratt-Furse would allow the NNSA’s weapons laboratories to examine more fully the technical options, the investigation of 

which is currently prohibited by law and to a lessor extent by the Spratt-Furse provisions of the House bill. There are problems in attempting to confine intellectual 

efforts to ‘‘research only’’ rather than ‘‘research and development’’ because these 

lines are often not clear. In the end, Congress controls these activities which could 

lead to a recommendation to initiate engineering development, since the Department of Energy would request funds from Congress as a separate line item in the 

President’s budget request for that year. 

Question. Will the Administration seek to test these weapons? 

Answer. The Administration remains committed to adhering to a moratorium on 

nuclear weapons testing. At the same time, the Administration has no intention of 

resubmitting the CTBT to the Senate for ratification. 

ENERGY MARKETS

Question. Now I would like to turn to the energy markets. Over the past few 

years, we have seen corporate scandal after corporate scandal in the news—and nowhere has there been more fraud and market abuse than in the energy sector. In 

March, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued its ‘‘Final Report on Price 

Manipulation in Western Markets’’ which confirmed there was widespread and pervasive fraud and manipulation during the Western Energy Crisis. The overwhelming evidence uncovered demands that California receive full and complete refunds and that FERC revise the state’s long-term contracts to remedy the manipulation that has taken place and to deter future abuse. 

Three years ago, this month California’s energy market began to spiral out of control. The crisis forced the State of California into a severe budget shortfall. It forced 

the state’s largest utility into bankruptcy and nearly bankrupted the second-largest 

utility. Now three years and $45 billion in costs later, we have learned how the energy markets in California were gamed and abused. 

Yet the Senate Energy Bill doesn’t prevent the type of gaming that went on during the energy crisis. The Senate bill only bans one type of specific manipulation—

wash trades in the electricity market—but it does not address the natural gas market, nor does it prevent other forms of fraud and manipulation that took place in 

California and were detailed in the Enron memos as ‘‘Fat Boy,’’ Ricochet,’’ ‘‘Death 

Star,’’ and ‘‘Get Shorty.’’

Does the Bush Administration support banning the type of fraud and manipulation that Enron engaged in? 
160

Answer. The Administration strongly opposes illegal market manipulations and 

supports the prevention of fraud and manipulation in the nation’s energy markets. 

It would not be appropriate to discuss cases involving Enron, and other energy firms 

that are still pending before FERC and in other forums, and this answer should not 

be understood as presuming the outcomes of those cases. 

Question. FERC Chairman Pat Wood and FERC Commissioner Bill Massey support conforming the penalty and refund provisions in the Federal Power Act with 

those of the Natural Gas Act. Does the Bush Administration also support these 

changes? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Section 1121 of Senator Domenici’s Energy Bill prevents the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission from issuing any rulemaking on the proposed 

Standard Market Design until July 1, 2005. What are the Bush Administration’s 

views on delaying the Standard Market Design rulemaking until this date—especially in light of the recent revisions proposed by the FERC Commissioners in their 

White Paper? 

Answer. In the White Paper FERC demonstrated its willingness to work with 

state regulators and industry to accommodate regional perspectives in the design of 

regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and other matters related to the formation and operation of regional wholesale markets for electricity. The Administration 

opposes blocking the FERC from any final rulemaking in this area for two years, 

which could prevent FERC from taking needed action to maintain stability in regional electricity markets. 

Question. In a speech last week to the National Petroleum Council, you made 

some comments about the current conditions in our natural gas markets. As you 

know, low U.S. production, low inventories, and high prices are battering industries 

that rely on natural gas as a raw material or energy source. In addition to the 

chemical, aluminum, and fertilizer industries—the ethanol industry is also dependant on natural gas. Since most ethanol plants rely solely on natural gas, is this the 

time to mandate billions of gallons of ethanol into our fuel supply and force many 

more ethanol plants to be built? 

Answer. New, modern dry mill ethanol plants use about 40,000 BTUs of natural 

gas per gallon of ethanol produced (76,000 BTUs). A small additional amount of natural gas will be used in the production of fertilizer used to grow corn. For the incremental 2.5 billion gallons that would need to be produced to reach the 5 billion gallon per year target under a renewable fuels standard, natural gas demand would 

be about .075 TFC higher in 2015. This would be an increase of about half of 1 percent in expected 2015 gas demand. We do not believe this is a significant amount 

given the potential factors that will drive natural gas supply and demand over the 

next 10–20 years. 

Question. Is the ethanol mandate something DOE is considering in evaluating our 

long-term natural gas needs? 

Answer. As discussed in the answer above, we do not believe that the impact of 

a 5 billion gallon per year renewal fuels standard will have a significant impact on 

future natural gas demand. 

HYDROGEN FUEL

Question. I support research and development efforts to make hydrogen fuel and 

fuel cell powered automobiles a reality. In fact, companies and universities based 

in California have been at the forefront of developing hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. However, I am concerned about the overwhelming amounts of energy it 

will take to extract hydrogen fuel on a large scale. Since the actions we take today 

will influence what kind of hydrogen economy develops 10 or 20 years from now, 

how does the Administration propose to generate this large amount of energy? 

Answer. A big advantage of hydrogen as a transportation fuel is its potential to 

be produced efficiently and economically via a number of processes and from a variety of domestic resources, such as natural gas and other fossil fuels, abundant renewables, and nuclear. The Department has established a balanced effort to research and develop hydrogen production capabilities from all of these resources. 

Today, the most cost-effective and efficient process is steam reforming of natural 

gas. Natural gas reforming is a route for producing hydrogen, particularly in the 

near term because of its current economics and the availability of existing infrastructure. Use of coal with sequestration, renewable resources, and nuclear are 

other routes for producing hydrogen over the long term. Although hydrogen production in the future is not likely to come from natural gas alone, an Energy Information Administration (EIA) calculation indicated that if 36 million hydrogen fuel cell 

vehicles were on the road by 2025, it would add about 5 percent to total natural 
161

gas that will be used in the United.States that year. This increase would be more 

than offset by natural gas demand reduced by new advanced technologies and efficiency improvements to existing technologies under development within the EERE 

portfolio. EERE’s analysis, based on our fiscal year 2004 budget request, indicates 

that by 2020 the industrial, buildings, and other portions of our portfolio will be 

freeing up some 11 percent of expected natural gas demand. In the future, hydrogen 

will likely be produced from a diverse suite of domestic resources, such as renewables, nuclear, natural gas and, if carbon capture and sequestration technologies are 

perfected, coal. Thus, the domestic resources needed to produce large amounts of hydrogen are available and, with continued research and development, the necessary 

production processes should meet required efficiency and cost objectives to facilitate 

a fuel cell vehicle commercialization decision by industry in 2015. 

ELK HILL

Question. The Department of Energy entered into a Settlement Agreement with 

the State of California to compensate the State for its interest in the Elk Hills oil 

reserve. The Settlement Agreement calls for the State to receive compensation in 

seven annual installments. The Department has met its obligations for the first five 

installments. Mr. Secretary, will the Department continue to meet its obligations 

under this Agreement? 

Answer. Estimates for the total for the remaining payments have been as high 

as $118 million; however, until final equity and final cost determinations are made, 

the precise amount is speculative. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2004 requests $36 million for the payment to California, indicative of the Department’s intention to meet its obligation to California. Under the agreement, if equity has not 

been finalized by July 2003 (which it will not be), DOE and the state should confer, 

and DOE must determine whether any or all of the seventh installment should be 

deferred. 

Question. DOE has held back $26 million in compensation due to the State because DOE has taken 6 years to finalize the split of the proceeds from selling Elk 

Hills. Under DOE’s Settlement Agreement, for the sixth installment in fiscal year 

2004, the State is entitled to half of the balance in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund 

that’s left after this holdback. Thus, the State is entitled to $59 million in Elk Hills 

compensation for fiscal year 2004, not the $36 million requested in your budget. Mr. 

Secretary, what is the Department’s view of an appropriation of the full $59 million? 

Answer. The Settlement Act provided for 9 percent of the net sales proceeds to 

be reserved in a contingent fund in the Treasury for payment to the State, subject 

to appropriation. The Department’s estimate of 9 percent of the net sales proceeds 

was $324 million, of which $298 million has already been deposited into the contingent fund. The Department will adjust the amount in the contingent fund once all 

divestment related costs and final equity have been determined. It is now apparent 

that the final equity determination will not be completed until fiscal year 2006. 

Since 9 percent of the net revenues can only be calculated after final equity and 

final costs are determined, the amount of the two ‘‘equal’’ final payments is contingent upon events that have not yet occurred, and it will be impossible for Congress 

to appropriate an amount for fiscal year 2004 that would be known to be 50 percent 

of the remaining payment.

CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

Senator BURNS. Thank you all very much. The subcommittee will 

stand in recess subject to the call of the Chair. 

[Whereupon, at 10:56 a.m., Thursday, May 22, the hearings were 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

(163)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2004

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee was unable to hold hearings 

on nondepartmental witnesses, the statements and letters of those 

submitting written testimony are as follows:]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM

In Support of $5,200,000 to assist in Colorado River Salinity Control, Title II, and 

with support for the President’s request for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, 

Water, and Air Management. Specifically, this testimony supports the President’s 

request for the Soil, Water and Air account in the amount of $34,936,000 and for 

a designation that $800,000 be used to further advance Colorado River salinity control efforts. 

This testimony is in support of funding for the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) for activities that assist the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. 

The BLM budget, as proposed by the Administration in the BLM budget justification document, calls for four principle program priorities within the Soil, Water and 

Air Management. One of these priorities, in part, is ‘‘through continuing BLM measures to meet the international agreement for salinity of the Colorado River.’’ It is 

also noted that in the budget justification document there are identified performance estimates for 2003 and it is stated that ‘‘The BLM continues to implement onthe-ground projects, evaluate progress in cooperation with Bureau of Reclamation 

and Natural Resources Conservation Service, and report salt-retaining measures in 

order to further the Plan of Implementation of the Federal Salinity Control program 

in the Colorado River Basin.’’ The Forum believes that in fiscal year 2004 funds appropriated by Congress will be used for this purpose in this next fiscal year. 

The seven Colorado River Basin States, through the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Forum, have been trying to engage the BLM in a partnership with the 

Basin states as has been done with other federal agencies. This enhanced working 

relationship has been slow to develop. The Forum is encouraged by the words in 

the BLM budget document. The Forum supports the funding request. Our analysis 

indicates that the BLM needs to specifically target the expenditure of funds in the 

amount of $5,200,000 for activities that help control salt contributions from BLM 

managed lands in the Colorado River Basin in fiscal year 2004 with $800,000 being 

focused upon salinity control efforts. 

Although the Forum has not been able to determine, to its satisfaction, how funds 

have been or will be spent, we are encouraged by recent BLM efforts. The Forum 

has requested that the BLM select a salinity coordinator for the basinwide program. 

This person would serve with the two full-time coordinators now in place for the 

USBR and the USDA. Salinity Coordinators in each of the state BLM offices have 

been identified. 

The BLM has been charged by the Congress with preparing a special report as 

to how the Bureau will advance salinity control activities. In the past, it has been 

difficult to determine the extent of BLM efforts in the water quality program. It has 
164

been very general in its accounting for accomplishments. The Forum hopes that the 

BLM report to the Congress, which is required under S. 1211 (Public Law 106–459), 

will better document the BLM efforts. The success of the BLM in controlling erosion 

and, hence, salt contributions to the Colorado River and its tributaries is essential 

to the success of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, including adherence to the water quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River Basin 

states and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Inadequate BLM control efforts will result in very significant additional economic damages to water 

users downstream. The Forum submits this testimony in support of adequate funding so that the BLM programs can move ahead at a pace that is needed to meet 

these water quality standards. 

OVERVIEW

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by Congress 

in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States made, through a minute of the 

International Boundary and Water Commission, to Mexico with respect to the quality of water being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act established a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water users 

in the United States and to comply with the mandates of the then newly enacted 

Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead federal role by Congress. This testimony is in support of 

funding for a portion of the Title II program. 

After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be amended. Congress revised the 

Act in 1984. That revision, while leaving implementation of the salinity control policy with the Secretary of the Interior, gave new salinity control responsibilities to 

the Department of Agriculture and to the Bureau of Land Management. Congress 

has charged the Administration with implementing the most cost-effective program 

practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt removed). The Basin states are 

strongly supportive of that concept and have proceeded to implement their own salinity control efforts in the Colorado River Basin. 

Since the congressional mandates of nearly two decades ago, much has been 

learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system. Reclamation recognizes that the damages to United States’ water users alone is about $0.3 billion per 

year. 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed of Gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah 

and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state coordinating body for interfacing with federal agencies and Congress in support of the implementation of the 

salinity control program. In close cooperation with the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and under requirements of the Clean Water Act, every three years 

the Forum prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, 

anticipated future salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep the 

salinities at or below the levels measured in the river system in 1972. 

The plan necessary for controlling salinity has been captioned the ‘‘plan of implementation.’’ The 2002 Review of water quality standards includes an updated plan 

of implementation. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed to plan. If adequate funds are not appropriated, state and federal agencies involved are in agreement that the damage from the high salt levels 

in the water will be even more widespread in the United States and Mexico. 

JUSTIFICATION

The BLM is, by far and away, the largest land manager in the Colorado River 

Basin. Much of the land that is controlled and managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management is heavily laden with salt. Past management practices, which include 

the use of lands for recreation; for road building and transportation; and for oil, gas, 

and mineral exploration have led to man-induced and accelerated erosional processes. When soil and rocks heavily laden with salt erode, the silt is carried along 

for some distance and ultimately settles in the streambed or flood plain. The salts, 

however, are dissolved and remain in the river system causing water quality problems downstream. 

The Forum believes that the federal government has a major and important responsibility with respect to controlling salt contributions from public lands. Congress charged federal agencies, including the BLM, to proceed with measures to control the salinity of the Colorado River, with a strong mandate to seek out the most 

cost-effective options. It has been determined that BLM’s rangeland improvement 
165

programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control measures available. These salinity control measures may be more cost-effective than some now 

being considered for implementation by the Bureau of Reclamation and by the Department of Agriculture. They are very environmentally acceptable, as they will prevent erosion, increase grazing opportunities, increase dependable stream flows, and 

enhance wildlife habitat. 

Through studying hundreds of watersheds in the States of Utah, Colorado, and 

Wyoming, consortiums of federal and state agencies, including the BLM, have selected several watersheds where very cost-effective salinity control efforts could be 

implemented immediately. In keeping with the Congressional mandate to maximize 

the cost-effectiveness of salinity control, the Forum is requesting that the Congress 

appropriate and the administration allocate adequate funds to support the Bureau 

of Land Management’s portion of the Colorado River salinity control program as set 

forth in the Forum’s adopted plan of implementation. 

BLM has not had a history of always adequately reporting its efforts, the associated expenditures and its accomplishments with respect to Colorado River salinity 

control. Legislation passed in 2000, S. 1211, requires the BLM to report its program 

for salinity control to the Congress. The Forum supports this requirement and looks 

forward to the filing of the report, which, by law, must also be filed with the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

Support for fiscal year 2004 Federal Funding of $5.2 Million for the Department 

of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management to assist in the Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Program, with $800,000 to be designated specifically to salinity control efforts. 

Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate fiscal year 2004 

funding for the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management with respect to the federal/state Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. This program is carried out as a part of ecosystem and watershed management pursuant 

to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act. 

As you are aware, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is the largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin. Due to geological conditions, much of the lands 

that are controlled and managed by the BLM are heavily laden with salt. Past management practices have led to man-induced and accelerated erosional processes from 

which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been deposited in various stream 

beds or flood plains. As a result of this disposition, salt is dissolved into the River 

System causing water quality problems downstream. 

Congress has charged federal agencies, including the BLM, to proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River. BLM’s rangeland improvement 

programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity measures available. 

These salinity control measures may be more cost-effective than some now being 

considered for implementation by the Bureau of Reclamation through its Basinwide 

Program and by the Department of Agriculture through its EQIP program. In keeping with the Congressional mandate to maximize the cost-effectiveness of the salinity control program, the Colorado River Board is requesting that Congress appropriate and the administration allocate adequate funds to support BLM’s portion of 

the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. 

The Colorado River Board of California, the state agency charged with protecting 

California’s interests and rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado 

River System, requests that Congress appropriate $5,200,000 of these funds in fiscal 

year 2004, to accomplish activities that BLM either has underway or should initiate 

in order to further control the concentrations of salinity of the Colorado River. It 

is particularly important that the BLM’s line item for Management of Lands and 

Renewal Resources be adequately funded. The Colorado River Board urges the Subcommittee to specifically mark, $800,000 from this line-item for the Colorado River 

Basin Salinity Control Program as has been the direction to BLM from the Subcommittee in past years. 

Soon your Subcommittee will receive testimony from the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) on behalf of the seven Colorado River Basin states. 

The Colorado River Board concurs in the fiscal year 2004 funding request and justification statements for BLM as set forth in the Forum’s testimony. 

California’s Colorado River water users are presently suffering economic damages, 

estimated at $300 million per year, due to the river’s salinity, as stated in a recent 

report prepared by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Metropolitan Water District 

of Southern California. In addition, the federal government has made significant 
166

commitments to the Republic of Mexico and to the seven Colorado River Basin 

states with regard to the delivery of quality water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2004 and in future fiscal 

years, that Congress provide funds to the Bureau of Land Management for its activities. 

The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital water resource 

to the 17 million residents of southern California. Preservation of its quality 

through an effective Salinity Control Program will avoid the additional economic 

damages to river users in California. 

The Board greatly appreciates your support of the Colorado River Basin Salinity 

Control Program and asks for your assistance and leadership in securing adequate 

funding for this vital program. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DORIS DAY ANIMAL LEAGUE

The Doris Day Animal League is a non-profit, member supported animal advocacy 

organization located in Washington, D.C. On behalf of our more than 350,000 members and supporters, we respectfully present to the subcommittee our concerns 

about the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Wild Horse and Burro Program 

(Program). 

In 1971, Congress charged the BLM with preserving America’s wild horses and 

burros via passage of the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act. The Act declares 

that ‘‘wild free-roaming horses and burros are living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West... [who] shall be protected from capture, branding, harassment or death.’’ Further, they are to be considered as ‘‘an integral part of the 

natural system of the public lands.’’

We are gravely concerned that the BLM is failing to fulfill this mandate, and instead is engaging in questionable and unsustainable practices under the guise of 

multiple-use land management. While the BLM has several mandates and must appease various interested parties, it should not do so at the expense of the very animals and land it is charged with protecting. 

In fiscal year 2001, the BLM requested and received a $9 million budget increase 

from Congress to implement a four year program to halve the number of wild horses 

on the range in order to restore the health of the land. Despite the agency’s failure 

to meet its own goals, this new level of funding was effectively maintained in fiscal 

years 2002 and 2003. 

The BLM’s plan raised several questions, not least of which was, where would the 

thousands of rounded-up horses go? Although the BLM has recognized the shortage 

of good adoptive homes and has subsequently made a commendable effort to open 

additional long-term holding facilities to accommodate these horses, it is unclear 

how the agency can sustain this plan of action; as more horses are rounded up, additional facilities and homes are needed, yet the agency’s budget remains essentially 

static. 

Already, BLM spends some 40 percent of its annual budget on holding and caring 

for horses and burros removed from the range. Nearly 40 percent of the program 

budget goes to administering and marketing an adoption program that can never 

be expected to absorb the thousands of wild horses and burros rounded up annually. 

In contrast, little more than 3 percent of the budget is devoted to range work, including monitoring and censusing of wild horse populations, even though such work 

is critical to the successful management of wild horse and burro populations and 

the range itself. 

Despite some grazing reductions in recent years, domestic livestock still so dramatically outnumber wild horses on BLM land (the ratio is estimated to be 50:1) 

that the removal of tens of thousands of horses has not had a significant impact 

on the health of the range. As a GAO report from 1990 stated, ‘‘. . . the primary 

cause of degradation in rangeland resources is poorly managed domestic livestock 

(primarily cattle and sheep) grazing... wild horses are vastly outnumbered on 

federal rangelands by domestic livestock . . .’’ (Rangeland Management: Improvements Needed in Federal Wild Horse Program, GAO, 1990). Our observations and 

experience in working with this program over the past several years reinforce that 

this is still very much the case. 

We therefore respectfully urge this subcommittee to carefully scrutinize the 

BLM’s request for funding for fiscal year 2004. While we do not oppose the agency 

receiving additional funds, we do not agree that the health of the range can be noticeably improved simply through the removal of large numbers of wild horses. Not 

only does this not yield significant improvements in range conditions, but the strategy also is financially unsustainable. 
167

As such, we strongly suggest that a new GAO Report on the BLM’s Program be 

conducted to determine if its wild horse and burro policies are appropriate when 

viewed as part of the agency’s larger mission. Further, in light of the huge number 

of wild horses and burros being rounded up through emergency and scheduled gathers, it is imperative that the ‘‘no-kill’’ provision that has been attached to the Interior Appropriations bill for several years now remain intact. That provision reads:

‘‘The appropriations made herein shall not be available for the destruction of 

healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land Management or its contractors.’’

Thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages some 262 million acres of the 

Nation’s public lands, which is 48 per cent of our total public lands, making it the 

single largest natural resource management agency in terms of acres managed. Yet 

its operating budget amounts to a funding rate of $3.73 per acre, about $4–$16 less 

per acre than the three other largest Federal land and natural resource management agencies. These lands provide critically important fish and wildlife habitat, 

and, in 2004, over 60 million visitors are expected to participate in recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting, camping, rafting, hiking, mountain biking, and 

wildlife viewing. The Association is concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget proposes essentially a static funding level. This will continue to present significant 

challenges to BLM to even maintain current levels of activity on these public lands, 

without providing the agency any capability to enhance its management presence 

and programs. Congress needs to begin to incrementally increase BLM’s operational 

budget to bring it into parity with the other Federal land management agencies. 

The BLM’s Fish and Wildlife Priorities 

While the Association appreciates the fact the Secretary of the Interior has revised the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, as well as increased the Challenge 

Cost Share Program, we also recognize that these undertakings are largely made 

possible by reallocating money from existing resource-based programs. For example, 

in fiscal year 2003, $5.5 million—over 60 percent—of the funding for the Challenge 

Cost Share Program originated from the wildlife, fisheries and T&E species programs. Since a like amount is not guaranteed to be used for these same purposes, 

the long-term implications are a reduction of program emphasis. The Association, 

therefore, requests funding for the Challenge Cost Share program not come from existing programs and those redirected funds be returned to the budget of origin. In 

addition to the source of funding, the Association remains very concerned that BLM 

does not have the staff to take full advantage of either the Cooperative Conservation 

Initiative or the Challenge Cost Share Program. 

Wildlife Management 

Consumptive (hunting and fishing) and non-consumptive wildlife activities (such 

as viewing, photography and conservation education) on public lands provide millions of America’s outdoor enthusiasts with opportunities to pursue these endeavors, 

which are part of our Nation’s rich cultural heritage. Such activities on BLM lands 

result in $2 billion in expenditures from participants each year. The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget for BLM’s Wildlife Management program is $22.42 

million, which is nearly identical to the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, but nearly 

$2.9 million (13 percent) below the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The Association 

strongly urges Congress to increase BLM’s fiscal year 2004 wildlife management 

budget by an additional $4 million. The return for this investment in expenditures 

in local communities is significant. 

Fisheries Management 

The BLM manages roughly 117,000 miles of fish bearing streams, 17,000 miles 

of anadromous fish habitat, and 3 million acres of fishable lakes and reservoirs 

which provide recreational anglers with high quality fishing opportunities, generating $390 million annually in economic benefits. In order to manage these resources, the Administration is requesting $11.87 million in fiscal year 2004 for Fisheries Management. This represents a program increase of $200,000 from the fiscal 

year 2003 enacted budget, but remains nearly $250,000 below the fiscal year 2002 
168

enacted budget. This will reduce BLM’s aquatic and riparian habitat restoration capabilities on vital public lands. Management activities will focus on the maintenance 

and restoration of habitat for both anadromous and resident species. These improvements are aimed at providing recreational angling opportunities and precluding the 

need for the listing of fish stocks as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. The Association strongly encourages Congress to increase this 

budget by an additional $1 million. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Lands administered by BLM provide habitat to more than 900 vulnerable and declining species and 306 threatened or endangered plant and animal species. The latter number has more than doubled since 1990. Like other Federal agencies, the Bureau is mandated by the Endangered Species Act to take steps to ensure that strategies are implemented to protect and restore both the species and the habitat that 

they require. With the rapid increase in the number of listed species, however, 

BLM’s Threatened and Endangered Species Program has transformed from one of 

proactive species conservation management to one that, out of necessity, must react 

to the increasing consultation workload. 

In the Conference Report from the Committee on Appropriations on the 2001 Department of Interior Appropriations Bill, the Committee specifically requested the 

Bureau to, ‘‘submit as part of its fiscal year 2002 budget request the results of its 

ongoing analysis and review of the impacts of ESA listings on the ability of the Bureau to accomplish its mission while at the same time responding to the growing 

demand for use authorization requests’’. The Committee also requested the Bureau 

to, ‘‘provide a detailed roadmap of how it intends to address these impacts, including 

the level of funds and other resources that would be required to address these problem areas’’. 

In its Report to Congress, dated March, 2001, and entitled ‘‘Effects of Endangered 

Species Act Listings on Bureau of Land Management Programs and Activities,’’ the 

agency concluded the following: ‘‘. . . BLM is proposing a future management strategy that streamlines the consultation process, enhances pre-listing management 

through the development of multi-species conservation frameworks, and aggressively addresses recovery actions identified in formal species recovery plans. This 

strategy will be integrated within the framework of the Bureau’s strategic plan. It 

will require doubling the current Threatened and Endangered Species budget to $48 

million and take an additional 70 staff positions over 5 years . . .’’. 

The President requests $21.83 million in fiscal year 2004 for BLM threatened and 

endangered species management, which represents a $543,000 increase from the fiscal year 2003 request, but totally ignores the aforementioned Report to Congress. 

The request is woefully inadequate to meet identified needs or allow the BLM to 

carry out its responsibilities under the ESA—or for that matter—its mission. Significant increases in funding are needed in fiscal year 2004 and the next several 

years to accomplish what was recommended in the 2001 Report to Congress—that 

is: ‘‘. . . At that time, funding and personnel needs should stabilize, and begin to 

decline as species recovery becomes effective’’. In view of this gross inequity between 

resource needs versus funding levels, the Association strongly encourages Congress 

to add an additional $5 million to the Threatened and Endangered Species fiscal 

year 2004 budget. 

BLM Fish & Wildlife Staffing 

The Association supports the previously-referenced programs and Bureau funding 

requests (with the recommended changes), however, we remain extremely concerned 

that at current staffing levels, the Bureau and its field staff will be unable to meet 

its program and statutory requirements. The western states’ population has more 

than tripled, to over 60 million people, over the past 55 years, while the Nation’s 

largest land management agency’s staff has declined. At current staff levels, biologists are often forced to divide their time between on-the-ground program implementation efforts and other program requirements, which may or may not provide direct 

fish or wildlife benefits. 

Evaluations of staffing needs by BLM have shown that the Bureau is lacking in 

staff to accomplish program goals. For example, a 1990 study of the Fish, Wildlife, 

and Forest Group showed that BLM was in need of three times its workforce at that 

time. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the fisheries and wildlife staffing 

levels have declined 20 percent since that time. Further, a recent workforce evaluation showed that with its current level of staffing in fisheries and wildlife, the BLM 

is staffed at only 50 percent and 57 percent, respectively, of its 1993 identified 

needs. More recently, the March, 2001, Report to Congress concluded it would take 

an additional 70 staff positions over five years to address its consultation, pre-listing 
169

management and recovery actions under the ESA. Nowhere in the fiscal year 2004 

budget request are these staffing needs addressed. Given the increased emphasis in 

this budget on accelerating the completion of land use plans and expanding energy 

development on public lands, these staffing shortages are resulting in fish and wildlife resources being inadequately addressed in agency actions. 

The Association understands the entire Wildlife and Fisheries Management Program has just undergone a complete review and the findings will be made public 

in the coming months. It is our sincere hope that recommendations contained therein will help guide preparation of the fiscal year 2005 and subsequent budgets. The 

Association asserts it is critical that the BLM be provided both the adequate staff 

and additional operating funds needed to implement its base programs in order to 

be effective in managing aquatic and terrestrial resources on public lands. These 

programs can help point the way towards both wildlife sustainability and economic 

stability and development. 

Because of these ongoing staffing shortages, the BLM has to utilize more and 

more contract employees to do much of its work related to planning efforts and onthe-ground monitoring, and this past year implemented an intern program with the 

Institute for Plant Conservation Biology. While the Association understands the use 

of contract employees and graduate students, we would encourage the BLM to explore ways to partner with State fish and wildlife agencies—through MOUs and 

funding agreements—to help accomplish its work related to wildlife and fisheries 

and threatened and endangered species management. This, in fact, should be aggressively pursued. This approach would help utilize existing expertise from the 

States who have management authority over resident species and expand the statefederal partnership necessary to perpetuate the diversity of flora and fauna of Western rangelands. 

The BLM needs to coordinate closely with the respective State fish and wildlife 

agencies so that programs and activities do not compromise State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife and to facilitate the cooperative design and 

conduct of research and management programs. Collaborative efforts between the 

BLM and the State fish and wildlife agencies play a critical role in achieving land 

and resource objectives for species and related resources. The Association recommends that funds be made available to the States to maximize discretion of the 

States in fish and wildlife information and management needs, wherever possible, 

instead of duplicating or authorizing conflicting programs. 

On a related matter, the Association continues to be deeply concerned that, as 

part of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act (FAIR) inventory, wildlife biology is one of the position categories that has been identified for possible outsourcing 

(i.e., contracting) to the private sector. We are adamantly opposed to any action that 

might result in the reduction or elimination of Federal career professionals being 

responsible for day-to-day oversight and management of the Nation’s public land resources. 

Finally, with the increased emphasis on energy development on BLM lands being 

advocated by the Administration, increased demands and needs for fish and wildlife 

expertise are expected. Already, approximately 30 percent of existing wildlife and 

fisheries staff time is being directed at energy-related functions. The Association 

strongly supports hiring additional fish and wildlife staff to address these critical 

program areas in the context of addressing the Nation’s Energy Policy, but recommends these positions be directly funded from the energy account, rather than 

extracted from the existing base Wildlife Management, Fisheries Management or 

Threatened or Endangered Species Program budgets. 

Riparian Management 

The BLM manages over 23 million acres of land classified as riparian or wetland. 

These areas include or support some of the most ecologically diverse and important 

plant and animal communities on the public lands. These areas have ecological significance far beyond their small acreage. They provide vital habitat components for 

hundreds of fish and wildlife species, filter sediment from water, afford greater 

water storage capacity, dissipate flood waters and offer excellent recreational opportunities. For these reasons and more, the Association supports BLM efforts in riparian areas, but remains concerned that the requested $21.97 million is insufficient 

to meet all of the identified needs. This amount, in addition to inflation and 

uncontrollables, is actually far less than what has been devoted to this important 

work in prior years. Given the potential for partnerships this program provides with 

other State and local interests, it is disheartening to see any lessening of attention 

paid these important resources. The Association requests that Congress add $3 million to this program, and urges BLM to continue its coordination with State fish 

and wildlife agencies in order to achieve optimal program results. 
170

Rangeland Management 

The Association is encouraged by BLM’s efforts to address the problem of invasive 

and noxious weeds on public lands and recommends a more focused effort to address 

high priority invasive species that are serious problems for fish and wildlife habitat. 

The Association supports a fiscal year 2004 budget of $9.4 million for invasive weed 

management, rather than the $8.3 million being requested. We also encourage Congress to add $3 million for local and State efforts to combat invasive weeds. 

Realty and Ownership Management 

The Association recommends reinstatement of the proposed reduction of $2 million in the Alaska Conveyance and Lands program in the fiscal year 2004 budget. 

This reduction, coupled with absorption of nearly half of the uncontrollables, will 

significantly impact this program. Completion of this program is long overdue and 

critical for the State and native corporations to receive their land entitlements 

under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and Alaska Statehood Act, both of 

which are several decades old. Until the land conveyances are complete, it is difficult for Federal and State agencies and private landowners to make land management decisions affecting State fish and wildlife management, public access, and land 

uses. 

In addition, we urge the BLM to redirect to actual land conveyances any funds 

currently being used for the ‘‘2001 Public Easement Review Process’’ in the Alaska 

region. Until the conveyance process is complete, any agency resources spent on the 

‘‘2001 Process’’ is premature. Existing regulations already prescribe an easement vacation process that can be used when needed. We recommend the BLM focus on 

signing and marking of easements to reduce trespass and land management issues. 

We urge the funds currently being spent on expediting vacations be more appropriately spent on completing land conveyance itself and the management of existing 

easements. 

Monitoring 

The Association understands the fiscal year 2004 budget request for BLM includes 

$1 million to conduct long-term, large-scale, ‘‘cumulative effects’’ resource monitoring. We support this effort and the manner in which these fiscal resources are 

included in the appropriate programs including wildlife management; fisheries management; soil, air and water; and cultural resources. Conversely, BLM is proposing 

$500,000 to expand resource monitoring to increase its ability to assess the cumulative impact of oil and gas development, especially on cultural resources and species-at-risk. This effort is targeted at states where coalbed natural gas development 

is occurring. However in this instance, the funding is contained in the oil and gas 

account. The Association supports this monitoring, but recommends the fiscal resources to conduct this work be allocated within the appropriate program area budget where biological and cultural resource expertise exists. 

Wild Horse and Burro Management 

The Association remains very concerned about the BLM’s inability to reach appropriate population levels for wild horses and burros on western rangelands and the 

resulting habitat damage, being further worsened by the continuing region-wide 

drought. In some instances, resource damage caused by excessive numbers of wild 

horses and burros will never recover, and in other areas, the situation is reaching 

crisis proportions. Yet, the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for this program is $295,000 less than the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget. This is simply an 

inconsistent response to a significant resource problem. The Association, therefore, 

recommends Congress increase this budget by an additional $500,000 in fiscal year 

2004 and require BLM—if not already scheduled—to undertake a complete review 

of the Wild Horse and Burro Management Program and have it accompany the fiscal year 2006 budget request. Not to be lost in this recommendation is the importance of the fact that BLM’s existing Wild Horse and Burro Management Program—

which is funded at $29.7 million for fiscal year 2003—already exceeds what is committed for its Fisheries Management ($11.7 million); Threatened and Endangered 

Species ($21.7 million); and Wildlife Management ($22.4 million) programs during 

the same period. This further validates the Association’s earlier assertion that the 

latter three program areas are grossly under-funded, by comparison. 
171

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION

SUMMARY

This Statement is submitted in support of fiscal year 2004 appropriations for Colorado River Basin salinity control program activities of the Bureau of Land Management. I urge that $5,200,000 be appropriated for the Bureau of Land Management 

for activities that benefit the control of salinity in the Colorado River Basin, and 

of that amount, $800,000 be marked specifically for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. In addition, I support the President’s requested appropriation 

of $34,936,000 for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management. 

STATEMENT

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is comprised of representatives 

of the seven Colorado River Basin States appointed by the respective Governors of 

the States. The Forum has examined all of the features needed to control the salinity of the Colorado River. Those features include activities by the States, the Bureau 

of Reclamation, the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The salinity control program has been adopted by the seven Colorado 

River Basin States and approved by the EPA as a part of each state’s water quality 

standards. Also, water delivered to Mexico in the Colorado River is subject to 

Minute 242 of the United States treaty with Mexico that sets limits on the salinity 

of the water. 

About 75 percent of the land in the Colorado River basin is owned, administered 

or held in trust by the federal government. BLM is the largest landowner in the 

Colorado River Basin, and manages public lands that are heavily laden with salt. 

When salt-laden soils erode, the salts are dissolved and remain in the river system 

affecting the quality of water used from the Colorado River by the Lower Basin 

States and Mexico. BLM needs to target the expenditure of $5,200,000 in fiscal year 

2004 for activities that benefit salinity control in the Colorado River Basin: In addition, BLM needs to target the expenditure of $800,000 of the $5,200,000 specifically 

for salinity control projects and technical investigations. Experience in past years 

has shown that BLM projects are among the most cost-effective of the salinity control projects. 

I believe that the Federal government has a major and important responsibility 

with respect to controlling salt discharge from public lands. Congress has charged 

the federal agencies to proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado 

River Basin with a strong mandate to seek out the most cost-effective solutions. 

BLM’s rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective 

salinity control measures available. In addition, these programs are environmentally 

acceptable and control erosion, increase grazing opportunities, produce dependable 

stream run-off and enhance wildlife habitat. 

The water quality standards adopted by the Colorado River Basin States contain 

a plan of implementation that includes BLM participation to implement cost effective measures of salinity control. BLM participation in the salinity control program 

is critical and essential to actively pursue the identification, implementation and 

quantification of cost effective salinity control measures on public lands. 

Bureau of Reclamation studies show that damages from the Colorado River to 

United States water users are about $300,000,000 per year. Control of salinity is 

necessary for the Colorado River Basin States, including New Mexico, to continue 

to develop their compact-apportioned waters of the Colorado River. The Basin States 

are proceeding with an independent program to control salt discharges to the Colorado River, in addition to up-front cost sharing with Bureau of Reclamation and Department of Agriculture salinity control programs. It is vitally important that BLM 

pursue salinity control projects within its jurisdiction to maintain the cost effectiveness of the program and the timely implementation of salinity control projects to 

avoid unnecessary damages in the United States and Mexico. 

For much of the last decade or more, there has been a protracted problem with 

BLM accounting and reporting on salinity control efforts. Congress required, by 

Public Law 106–459, that BLM report to Congress on its salinity control efforts. I 

fully support the action by Congress to require BLM to report on its accomplishments within the salinity control program. Accounting and reporting BLM salinity 

control accomplishments annually is an essential activity to provide a coordinated, 

cost effective salinity control program. 

At the urging of the Basin States, BLM has agreed to create a full time position 

to coordinate its activities among the BLM state offices and other federal agencies 

involved in implementation of the salinity control program. BLM is to be com-
172

mended for this important first step to improve cooperation and coordination with 

the Basin States and other federal agencies, and to comply with BLM responsibilities pursuant to the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, as amended. The 

Basin States and I are pleased with the current BLM administration’s responsiveness in addressing the need for a salinity coordinator and are hopeful that submittal 

of the required report to Congress will signal a renewed effort by BLM to identify 

and implement projects to address the salinity control objectives required to maintain the water quality standards for salinity. It is commendable that BLM’s budget 

focuses on ecosystems and watershed management, but it is essential that funds be 

targeted on specific subactivities and the results of those expenditures reported. 

This is necessary for accountability and effectiveness of the use of the funds. 

I request the appropriation of $5.2 million in fiscal year 2004 for Colorado River 

salinity control activities of BLM, and that $800,000 of that amount be marked specifically for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, including projects 

and technical investigations. In addition, I request the appropriation of $34,936,000 

for the Land Resources Subactivity: Soil, Water, and Air Management as requested 

by the President. I very much appreciate favorable consideration of these requests. 

I fully support the statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 

submitted by Jack Barnett, the Forum’s Executive Director, in request of appropriations for BLM for Colorado River salinity control activities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is a nonprofit organization staffed by 

experienced resource management professionals and is dedicated to sound, scientific 

management of wildlife and wildlife habitats. This letter contains our comments on 

the Administration’s proposed fiscal 2004 budget for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In particular, we propose increases of $40 million for the Wildlife and 

Fisheries program, a $50 million increase for the Threatened and Endangered Species program, and a $10 million increase for the Riparian Area Management program. 

The BLM manages some 262 million acres of the nation’s public lands, which is 

48 percent of our total public lands, making it the single largest natural resource 

management agency in terms of acres managed. These lands provide critically important fish and wildlife habitat, and, in 2004, over 60 million visitors are expected 

to participate in recreational opportunities for fishing, hunting, camping, rafting, 

hiking, mountain biking, and wildlife viewing. In contrast, the energy and mineral 

production components of BLM’s mission often pose extreme threats to wildlife resources and associated recreation. These circumstances merit an ongoing commitment to funding sound wildlife management. 

Hunting and non-consumptive wildlife activities (Such as viewing, photography 

and conservation education) on public lands provide millions of America’s outdoor 

enthusiasts with opportunities to pursue these endeavors. Such activities on BLM 

lands result in $2 billion in expenditures from participants each year, most of this 

spent in rural communities. The Administration’s fiscal 2004 budget for BLM’s 

Wildlife Management Program is $22.42 million, which remains $2.9 million (13 

percent) below the fiscal 2002 enacted level. WMI strongly urges your subcommittee 

to increase BLM’s fiscal 2004 wildlife management budget by an additional $4 million to $26.42 million. 

The BLM manages roughly 117,000 miles of fish bearing streams, 17,000 miles 

of anadromous fish habitat, and 3 million acres of fishable lakes and reservoirs, 

which provide recreational anglers with high quality fishing opportunities, generating $390 million annually in economic benefits. Yet, the Administration is requesting $250,000 less than was enacted in fiscal 2002. This will reduce BLM’s aquatic 

and riparian habitat restoration capabilities on vital public lands. WMI encourages 

your subcommittee to increase the agency’s fisheries budget by an additional $1 million to $12.87 million. 

Lands administered by BLM provide habitats to more than 900 vulnerable and 

declining species and 306 threatened or endangered plant and animal species, and 

these numbers are increasing. With the rapid increase in the number of listed species, however, BLM’s Threatened and Endangered Species Program has transformed 

from one of proactive species conservation management to one that, out of necessity, 

must react to the increasing consultation workload. The BLM is proposing a future 

management strategy for at-risk species that streamlines the consultation process, 

enhances pre-listing management through the development of multi-species conservation frameworks, and aggressively addresses recovery actions identified in formal species recovery plans. This strategy will be integrated within the framework 
173

of the Bureau’s strategic plan, and is projected to cost the agency $30 million above 

current authorized funding levels. The Administration is requesting $21.83 million 

in fiscal 2004 for BLM threatened and endangered species management, but this request is woefully inadequate to meet identified needs or allow the BLM to carry out 

its responsibilities under the ESA—or for that matter, its mission. Significant increases in funding are needed in fiscal 2004 and the next several years. In view of 

the inequity between resource needs and appropriated funding levels, WMI encourages your subcommittee to increase the Threatened and Endangered Species fiscal 

2004 budget for the BLM to $27 million. Failing to provide adequate fiscal support 

for these programs will allow further unnecessary declines in sensitive species populations, resulting in even greater costs for future restoration and management. We support the Administration’s requested increase of $15.11 million for Resource Management and Planning to $48.146 million. We understand these funds are to 

expedite the development of 37 land management plans, but we are concerned that 

the BLM will overlook the need to balance biological and other resource monitoring 

with the rush to accelerate energy development. We believe these plans should provide guidelines for management of public lands for the next 15 years and that they 

should require an orderly development of energy resources. We recommend that 

each land management plan have an annual monitoring plan, and that funding be 

appropriated to conduct and analyze the data. The BLM has identified a need of approximately $140 million to implement 13 

ecosystem restoration initiatives over the next four years; almost half of which deal 

with sagebrush/sage grouse, lesser prairie-chicken or prairie dog habitats (BLM’s 

Sagebrush and Prairie Grassland Initiatives). These innovative restoration projects 

range from the Arctic Tundra and Boreal Forests in Alaska to the Chihuahuan and 

Sonoran Deserts in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Without additional funding, 

BLM will have no choice but to delay action on these initiatives. While the total 

cost to restore these ecosystems is high, it will be even more expensive to restore 

them in the future. We recommend you subcommittee to provide at least $2 million 

to the BLM to implement the Sagebrush and Prairie Grassland Initiatives (particularly to support the efforts of the High Plains Partnership). Importantly, other State 

and Federal agencies, as well as private organizations, are poised to fund closely 

allied efforts for these initiatives, so BLM has a unique opportunity to leverage its 

expenditures, if appropriate funding is provided. 

We are concerned about the agency’s request not to provide funding to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The foundation leverages more than 

$3 private for every Federal dollar invested. The collaborative and cooperative 

projects supported by the NFWF resolve real conflicts in conservation and land 

management that otherwise would lead to gridlock and extreme cost. We recommend that your subcommittee provide $1 million in the BLM’s budget for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

The Wildlife Management Institute is concerned that at current staffing levels, 

the Bureau and its field staff will be unable to meet its program and statutory requirements. The western states’ population has more than tripled—over 60 million 

people—over the past 55-years, while the nation’s largest land management agency’s staff has declined. At current staff levels, biologists are often forced to divide 

their time between on-the-ground program implementation efforts and other program requirements; which may or may not provide direct fish or wildlife benefits. 

Exacerbating the problem is the fact that the fisheries and wildlife staffing levels 

have declined 20 percent in recent years. Nowhere in the Administration’s fiscal 

2004 budget request for the agency are these staffing needs addressed. Given the 

increased emphasis in this budget on accelerating the completion of land use plans 

and expanding energy development on public lands, these staff and skill shortages 

are resulting in fish and wildlife resources being inadequately addressed in agency 

actions. We request that your subcommittee provide the BLM with the authority 

and funding for staff and operation resources necessary to implement its base programs in order to be effective in managing aquatic and terrestrial resources on public lands. We also encourage your subcommittee to direct the BLM to explore ways 

to partner with State fish and wildlife agencies, other Federal agencies and professional private wildlife groups and individuals—through MOUs and funding agreements—to help accomplish its work related to wildlife and fisheries and threatened 

and endangered species management. However, we are opposed to any action that 

might result in the reduction or elimination of Federal career fish or wildlife professionals who are responsible for day-to-day oversight or management of the nation’s 

public land resources. 

The BLM needs to coordinate closely with the respective State fish and wildlife 

agencies so that programs and activities do not compromise State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife and to facilitate the cooperative design and 
174

conduct of research and management programs. Collaborative efforts between the 

BLM and the State fish and wildlife agencies play a critical role in achieving land 

and resource objectives for species and related resources. WMI recommends that 

funds be made available to the States to maximize discretion of the States in fish 

and wildlife information and management needs, wherever possible, instead of duplicating or authorizing conflicting programs. 

Finally, the increased emphasis on energy development on public lands by the Administration has placed a heavy burden on BLM’s professional fish and wildlife 

staff. Already, approximately 30 percent of existing wildlife and fisheries staff time 

is being directed at energy-related functions yet charged to fisheries and wildlife 

program elements. WMI recommends that your subcommittee direct the BLM to ensure that energy accounts pay for the costs related to energy development. Further, 

WMI recommends that your subcommittee strongly support hiring additional fish 

and wildlife staff by the BLM to address these critical program areas, but again, 

we recommend these positions be directly funded from the energy account, rather 

than extracted funds from Wildlife management, Fisheries Management or Threatened or Endangered Species Program budgets. Without addressing these fish and 

wildlife staffing and skill needs, the orderly development of our energy resources 

could be curtailed and make activities more vulnerable to legal challenge. We believe Congress should invest more in assuring that high profile fish and wildlife resources are treated before development creates a crisis. 

Thank you for considering our comments, and we look forward to working with 

you and your staff throughout the appropriation process as we learn more details 

about the Administration’s budget request and needs. If you or your staff would like 

to discuss our recommendations further, please contact me or Terry Riley, Director 

of Conservation, at (202) 371–1808. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

REQUESTING $100 MILLION FOR STATE WILDLIFE GRANTS PROGRAM IN FISCAL YEAR 2004

The mission of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is to manage, protect, 

maintain, and improve the fish, game and aquatic plant resources of Alaska. The 

ability of the Department to carry out this mission is greatly enhanced by federal 

funding provided by the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) Program. 

The Department appreciates the significant support this committee has given to 

the SWG Program over the past several years. This relatively new funding source 

has enabled us to initiate new programs needed to monitor low and declining species in Alaska, especially those not hunted or fished. We have commenced new research programs to monitor amphibians, neotropical migratory birds, and a variety 

of individual species, including the Queen Charlotte Goshawk, which was recently 

petitioned to be listed as a threatened species, largely because little was known 

about the bird. We have also initiated a comprehensive planning effort, aimed at 

identifying those species most in need of management attention. 

Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2003 funding for this program was cut substantially 

from $85 million to $65 million. This represented a breach in the commitment made 

to supporters of Conservation and Reinvestment Act legislation, when—as a compromise—Congress created the Conservation Trust Fund within the fiscal year 2001 

appropriations bill. The intention was to fund these programs for six years and to 

increase funding by 10 percent annually. This occurred for the first two years; however, last year funding for State Wildlife Grants was cut significantly. The decrease 

from $85 to $65 million threatens to undermine this critical program just as it is 

beginning to influence on-the-ground conservation. We encourage you to uphold the 

2001 compromise and provide this much-needed funding at the $100 million level. 

With more than 1,000 animals and plants already listed as federally threatened 

or endangered, State Wildlife Grants are our best hope for aggressively stemming 

this decline. Investing federal dollars now to protect or restore wildlife populations 

is far more effective than waiting until populations reach critically low levels and 

need ‘‘emergency room care’’ through the Endangered Species Act. Ultimately, State 

Wildlife Grants will save both our nation’s precious wildlife heritage and taxpayer 

dollars. 

We urge you to help ensure that $100 million is provided in fiscal year 2004 to 

fund this priority fisheries and wildlife conservation program. 
175

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF BACK BAY

I am Molly Brown from Virginia Beach, Virginia. I am the President of Friends 

of Back Bay, a group of over 400 dedicated volunteers who are committed to the 

protection of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Located in southeastern Virginia Beach, Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge was established on February 29, 

1938, as a 4,589-acre refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds. We thank 

Congress for their continued support of this project. 

The Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved a Refuge boundary 

expansion on May 7, 1990. The expansion area includes 6,340 acres of important 

wildlife habitat. To date the Fish and Wildlife Service has been able to acquire 4,452 

acres. The Virginia Division of Natural Heritage has identified 14 natural areas 

within the Back Bay watershed, nine of which are within the Refuge boundary. 

These areas contain rare plant and animal communities, some of which are found 

nowhere else in Virginia. The Refuge annually supports tens of thousands of migratory birds including neotropical migrants, other songbirds, waterfowl, shore birds, 

wading birds and raptors. Submerged aquatic vegetation has begun to make a reappearance in Back Bay, due in part to land protection efforts of the Service. Various wintering waterfowl (widgeons, green-winged teal, and gadwall) have wintered 

in Back Bay this year. This acquisition had been zoned to accommodate 3,000 

homes; however, thanks to Congress, this area has been protected forever as a portion of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge is truly a diversified ecosystem. The Refuge is the first undeveloped area south of the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. The 

first successful bald eagle nest on Back Bay in over 30 years occurred on newly acquired Refuge lands in 1994. For the past nine years, fifteen eaglets were fledged 

from this nest. Again this year the eagles are nesting. Furthermore, additional adult 

Bald Eagles have been observed on the Refuge, as well as other area of the City 

of Virginia Beach. Also, loggerhead sea turtles nest on the Refuge beaches at the 

northern limit of their nesting range. Three loggerhead nests were successfully located and protected in 2002 and sea turtle management on the Refuge received significant media coverage during the summer. Peregrine falcons and piping plovers 

continue to use Refuge habitats during migration. Finally, owl research continues 

to be conducted on the Refuge. So far they have banded and studied the eastern 

screech, great horned, common barn and saw-whet owls. 

The threat to the Back Bay watershed continues. The primary threat is conversion of existing farmland and woodland into residential, commercial and recreational uses. The City of Virginia Beach Comprehensive Plan projects an estimated 100,000 additional residents in the Back Bay watershed. Current proposals 

include condo development, mineral extraction and golf course development. As development restrictions are relaxed, land values are escalating and may soon be out 

of reach for conservation purposes. 

Since the metropolitan area of Southeastern Virginia is one of the fastest growing 

urban areas in the nation, natural havens such as the Back Bay National Wildlife 

Refuge are increasingly important to its 1.5 million inhabitants. A survey of 500 

registered voters conducted in 2000 by the City of Virginia Beach and Trust for Public Lands revealed that 86 percent believed that it is important to protect the Back 

Bay. This in part led the City of Virginia Beach to adopt the Virginia Beach Outdoors Plan in February 2001. This plan is an initiative to preserve open space for 

physical and visual enjoyment. The Refuge provides public recreation, e.g. hunting, 

fishing, bird watching, photography and environmental education. Visitation at the 

Refuge is over 100,000 per year. Environmental education is a major public use, 

with over 5000 schoolchildren utilizing the area in 2002. 2003 marked the 100th anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Back Bay NWR and its partner 

in education school, Red Mill Elementary, observed it with a school assembly and 

photo contest for the fifth graders. The photos were the student’s reflection on the 

Back Bay area. The winning photos were placed in the 100-year time capsule, as 

evidence of the importance of Back Bay to today’s students and future leaders. From 

the Refuge’s visitor center, students can observe seven different habitats. These 

habitats are necessary for the survival of a wide variety of wildlife. In keeping with 

our environmental education opportunities, a group of local volunteers have worked 

with the Refuge staff to put the Back Bay Refuge on the Internet. This will enable 

people world wide to access information about the Back Bay ecosystem. 

Furthermore, the Back Bay Refuge is now part of the Charles Kuralt Trail, which 

includes eleven refuges in Virginia and North Carolina. Back Bay is designated for 

the osprey and has a handicap accessible trail to view these magnificent ‘‘fish 

hawks.’’
176

The acquisition of lands on the west side of Back Bay, that are contiguous with 

Refuge property, will provide a more complete wildlife habitat unit that can be managed with the existing Refuge staff. In addition, in 1997 the Fish and Wildlife Service purchased a 17-acre tract on the west side of the Bay that is now serving as 

a new environmental education center for the Back Bay Refuge. This is helping to 

introduce school children and other interested citizens to the ecology of freshwater 

marshes and forested wetlands. The location of this facility is closer to the people 

and reduces the travel time by forty minutes. 

With money appropriated in fiscal year 2003, the Fish and Wildlife Service has 

purchased 139 acres from willing sellers. In order to continue the Back Bay Refuge 

expansion project, we respectfully request $1.0 million for fiscal year 2004. This 

money will help to fill in the mosaic pattern of small land parcels from willing sellers who have been waiting patiently to sell their land to the Refuge. One 15-acre 

tract for sale on Horned Point Road is bound on both sides by Refuge property. The 

owners of another 65-acre marsh are willing sellers who want to see this area protected. A 20-acre tract will provide ingress/egress to a parcel recently purchased by 

the Refuge and will complete the acquisition of this property. A 260-acre shallow 

lake is being added to the Refuge boundary at the request of the owner. Approximately three-fourths of the shoreline is bounded by the Refuge and the remainder 

is bounded by Dam Neck Naval Base. 

I wish to extend my appreciation for the funding that you have appropriated 

through fiscal year 2003. This money has purchased 4,452-acres of the proposed 

6,340-acres expansion. This means that this project is over 70 percent completed in 

thirteen years. Also, this project is ranked thirty-seventh on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s LAPS list and is in the President’s budget. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO 

I am pleased to provide written comments on behalf of the City of Kansas City, 

Missouri (the City) in support of the President’s 2004 Budget Request of $288.2 million for the Department of Energy’s Low-Income Weatherization Assistance Program 

(WAP). For more than 20 years the City has been the leader in the State of Missouri 

in effective and efficient energy conservation assistance to low-income households. 

The City has historically supported weatherization assistance by contributing more 

than $250,000 in General Funds annually. The City also leads the State in 

leveraging private utility and business monies for the WAP. We have ‘‘honed’’ service delivery skills through highly technical diagnostic analysis of each site to be assisted. These increased skills provide assurance that any monies spent on weatherization will meet performance expectations before energy conservation measures are 

installed on site. This results in guaranteed outcome before public dollars are spent. 

Despite these successes, changes in the economy have dramatically increased requests for assistance. Increased energy costs also affect requests for assistance. We 

are confident that the full provision of the President’s requested funding for WAP 

will provide many more benefits than reductions in energy use. 

Energy providers throughout the nation are pleased to participate in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP’s ‘‘safety net’’ assistance is helpful; however, most energy providers support the notion that investment 

in energy efficiency is a better long-term solution than paying fuel bills. LIHEAP 

is critical during intense heating and cooling seasons; however, the ratio of energy 

assistance to the prevention component of energy efficiency is estimated to be more 

than 8 to 1. Energy efficiency investment produces a better bottom line for energy 

suppliers by reducing collection, turn-on turn-off cycles and charge offs to bad debt 

which all customers eventually pay through rate increase that are affected by the 

collection problems. 

The WAP’s mission statement is ‘‘to reduce the heating and cooling costs for lowincome families, particularly for the elderly, people with disabilities, and children, 

by improving the energy efficiency of their homes while ensuring their health and 

safety.’’ In Kansas City, we track incidences of health issues discovered during the 

course of site analysis of homes eligible for assistance. We find the average low-income home visited was built inefficiently when energy was inexpensive and with little knowledge of whole house energy use technology versus today’s standards. By 

their low-income nature, most eligible homes experience critical deferred maintenance. Some of the most critical areas of deferred maintenance are with the heating/

cooling and hot water and cooking appliances. A review of past years weatherization 

activity in Kansas City shows that on average: 

—Approximately 600 households receive energy efficiency assistance annually; 
177

—One or more natural gas leaks are detected and corrected on each house; 

—Very high levels of carbon monoxide is discovered in 20 percent of the houses; 

—Indoor air quality issues are diagnosed and corrected in 87 percent of the 

houses; and 

—Back drafting of flue gas occurs in over 25 percent of homes weatherized. 

These health issues have a major impact on the well being of the applicant, the 

community. Eliminating natural gas leaks not only saves energy dollars, their elimination also eliminates personal injury and property damage due to explosions. We 

know that without weatherization intervention, there are increased health care 

costs from over exposure to high levels of carbon monoxide and moisture related indoor air quality problems. From time to time we receive anecdotal feedback that cellulose insulation installed by WAP prevented fire from spreading in homes. 

The sum total of energy efficiency investment though WAP is a compelling reason 

for full program funding. Numerous empirical studies by Oakridge National Laboratory and The Final Report by TecMRKT Works Process and Impact Evaluation of 

Missouri Gas Energy Pilot Weatherization Program, 827 Shady Oaks lane, Oregon, 

Wisconsin, 83575 that the return on public dollars is more the 3 times its investment. 

The partnerships WAP developed with HUD, state finance agencies and the private market provides assurance that the innovative financing mechanisms that are 

used to produce affordable housing assure the success of the affordable concept. You 

should note that because most development costs for government and privately financed affordable housing are fixed and generally predictable. Home energy costs 

are the most volatile component of housing expenses. On that basis energy efficiency 

investment becomes a critical tool to ensure affordable housing remains affordable. 

Neighborhoods and many communities are now at risk due to higher than usual layoff and plant closings. Households that traditionally do not apply for assistance are 

now seeking help. WAP investment reduces household energy expenses for this 

newly group in need of help. 

We know that WAP is often the test bed for efficiency technologies that ultimately 

are adopted by the housing industry. We are proud of this historical legacy and we 

know that we can continue to contribute to the well being of America by maximum 

use of the WAP infrastructure. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

Defenders of Wildlife has substantial concerns about the Administration’s fiscal 

year 2004 budget and makes recommendations regarding these concerns and funding in the following priority areas. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ENDANGERED SPECIES FUNDING

Defenders urges an increase of $13 million over the Administration’s budget request of $12.2 million for the FWS endangered species listing account and $50 million over the Administration request of $62 million for the recovery account. The 

President’s request for the four main FWS endangered species accounts, $128.7 million, is up slightly by nearly $3 million from fiscal year 2002. Most of this is a modest increase for the listing account largely due to a series of court decisions forcing 

the federal government to designate critical habitat for listed species. FWS has a 

current listing backlog of $137 million and more than 250 species awaiting ESA protection—including the Washington ground squirrel, Northern sea otter, sheathtailed bat, gunnison sage grouse, friendly ground dove, lesser prairie chicken, bandrumped storm petrel, and the elfin woods warbler. Many candidates could become 

extinct while awaiting protection. A total of about $25 million per year for listing 

for the next 5–6 years would help FWS address this backlog. 

Recovery funding is cut $1.6 million below fiscal year 2002 even though FWS has 

said that more than 200 species currently listed under the Act could become extinct 

in the next five years simply because not enough funds are available for recovery 

activities. Some of these are Hawaiian species, including the world’s rarest bird—

the po’ouli with only three individuals known to exist in the wild. Others include: 

the Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit with less than 50 individuals in the wild; the Selkirk population of the woodland caribou with less than 35 remaining in the wild; 

and the Mississippi gopher frog which is limited to one pond in south central Mississippi. We understand that FWS believes it could realistically spend an additional 

$50 million per year in recovery with current staffing and we urge such an increase. 
178

LAND, CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION, AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT FUND

(LCPII)

Defenders urges full funding of this conservation trust fund at its dedicated fiscal 

year 2004 level of $1.56 billion for the Interior appropriations subcommittee portion 

of the fund. We further urge the subcommittee to maintain the integrity of the fund 

and include only programs originally incorporated in the fund when it was established. We greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s past support for fully funding and 

maintaining the integrity of this historic dedicated fund, however we were dismayed 

that the final fiscal year 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill cut the Interior portion 

of the fund by more than $400 million below its dedicated fiscal year 2003 level. 

We understand that during final resolution of the fiscal year 2003 bill the subcommittee was under substantial funding constraints not within its control, and we 

will be working to generate Congressional support for a fiscal year 2004 302(b) allocation sufficient to allow full funding for the conservation trust fund. Unfortunately, 

the Administration’s budget cuts the subcommittee’s portion of this historic fund by 

$477 million below the fiscal year 2004 $1.56 billion dedicated level. Moreover, the 

request again erodes the original purpose of the dedicated fund by: (1) substantially 

cutting existing programs; (2) substantially increasing the level in the fund for federal lands maintenance originally intended to be complementary to amounts provided in the base; and (3) adding programs not originally included in the fund as 

a new ‘‘Cooperative Conservation Initiative.’’ 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program.—Defenders of Wildlife and the more 

than 3,000 organizations nationwide in the Teaming With Wildlife Coalition are requesting at least $125 million for this important program for fiscal year 2004. The 

Administration’s budget recommends $60 million for fiscal year 2004, slashing this 

critical program by $25 million or nearly 30 percent below its fiscal year 2002 level. 

This important program gives states desperately needed funding to develop and implement comprehensive conservation plans to protect declining species and their 

habitats before protection under the ESA is necessary. More than 1,200 species currently are under the ESA’s protection. Without proactive efforts to reverse species 

declines, scientists estimate that more than 5,000 new wildlife and plant species 

may need to be listed under the ESA. State fish and wildlife agencies have identified a need that totals $1 billion annually—the requested amount of $125 million 

is only a modest 12.5 percent of the total annual need. 

The State and Tribal Wildlife grants program is particularly important to future 

efforts to prevent habitat loss. The most significant threat to U.S. biodiversity is 

habitat loss and degradation. A 1995 report analyzing habitat loss by conservation 

biologists Reed Noss and Rob Peters, ‘‘Endangered Ecosystems: A Status Report on 

America’s Vanishing Habitat and Wildlife,’’ identified 69 ecosystems that have lost 

more than 85 percent of their acreage since colonization. The State and Tribal Wildlife grants program requires states to develop landscape-level comprehensive wildlife and habitat conservation plans as a condition for receiving program monies; 

these plans are blueprints that will help arrest the type of habitat declines occurring nationwide while guiding restoration and conservation. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund.—Defenders urges funding of at least $650 

million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund for fiscal year 2004: $450 million 

for federal LWCF and $200 million for state-side LWCF. The Administration says 

it is requesting full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund at its authorized $900 million level. But all the request does is re-package 15 other separate 

and important but non-LWCF conservation programs as LWCF. Ostensibly, the request for LWCF is $900 million, but only $348 million of this is for authorized 

LWCF purposes—$225 million or 39 percent below fiscal year 2002 and $552 million 

below the authorized level. Moreover, the Administration budget actually cuts federal land acquisition for our National Wildlife Refuges, Parks, Forests and Bureau 

of Land Management lands by $240 million or 56 percent below fiscal year 2002. 

The Natural Resources Inventory estimates 2.2 million acres are lost to development each year. Funding for LWCF land acquisition needs to be increased, not decreased. LWCF remains one of the greatest tools we have to address the increasingly severe problem of loss of open space, forests, and wildlife habitat. While the 

subcommittee has for the most part not acquiesced to the Administration’s request 

to add new programs to LWCF, it has placed several new programs under the Fund. 

Defenders urges the subcommittee to maintain the integrity of the LWCF by reversing this action and rejecting the Administration’s proposal to fund additional important conservation programs out of it. 
179

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM OPERATIONS AND

MAINTENANCE

Defenders and the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement are requesting an fiscal year 2004 increase of $100 million over the fiscal year 2003 funding level 

of $367 million, or $75 million over the President’s requested $25.5 million increase 

and urge that the bulk of it be directed to operations. We greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s support in the past and ask that it be continued. The National Wildlife 

Refuge System is an American treasure that recently passed a landmark when it 

celebrated its 100th anniversary on March 14. The 94 million acre National Wildlife 

Refuge System is the only federal public lands system dedicated primarily to the 

conservation of fish and wildlife; it is crucial to the protection of a teeming array 

of migratory birds, endangered species and other wildlife. Yet despite its critical importance to the conservation of wildlife and wildlife habitat, chronic and severe 

funding shortfalls for operations and maintenance have threatened the Refuge System’s ability to achieve its mission for many years. At this point, the bulk of the 

need is for operations funding to address protection of wildlife, management and 

restoration of wildlife habitat, public outreach and visitor services, and a crippling 

38 percent staff shortage—nearly 200 refuges have no staff on site. The current 

backlog of the most critical operations and maintenance projects totals $955 million. 

Defenders is a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE), a diverse coalition of 20 environmental, recreation and scientific organizations working to substantially increase funding for the Refuge System. CARE is calling for increasing the Refuge System’s budget to a total of $700 million over the 

next three years so that it has the funds to carry out its mission as it embarks on 

its second century of wildlife conservation. Defenders is extremely concerned, however, that the requested O&M increase appears to be at least partially at the expense of critically needed land acquisition for refuges which has dropped by 59 percent since fiscal year 2002. We urge any increase for O&M not come at the expense 

of land acquisition for refuges. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MIGRATORY BIRD PROGRAMS

Defenders requests a $15 million increase for Migratory Bird Management over 

the fiscal year 2002 level of $28 million and full funding of $5 million for the 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act under the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. As currently funded, these programs cannot fulfill their mandates 

to adequately monitor and plan for the conservation of 825 species of migratory 

birds, of which more than 750 species are nongame birds. Nearly 100 nongame birds 

are listed under the ESA and more than 100 species are on the FWS List of Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern. Thus, over 25 percent of all migratory 

birds are in serious need of conservation to assure their long-term survival. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM): RESOURCE PROTECTION AND ENERGY

DEVELOPMENT

Defenders urges rejection of the requested $10 million increase for expansion of 

energy and mineral development. Instead, we urge increases for important resource 

protection needs including: Integrated Weed Management to curb the prolific spread 

of invasive species; Threatened and Endangered species to preserve the 306 listed, 

59 candidate and 1,500 sensitive species on BLM lands; Sagebrush and Prairie 

Grassland Ecosystem Projects to apply multi-species conservation approach across 

large landscapes; Rangeland Management to help improve the health of grazing 

lands; Recreation Resources Management to prevent off-road vehicle damage; and 

the National Landscape Conservation System which contains some of our country’s 

most extraordinary natural and cultural resources. Under the Bureau of Land Management, the Administration is requesting a nearly $10 million increase to expand 

energy and mineral development on public lands including expedited permitting and 

increased leasing, energy related rights of way, and further development on Alaska’s 

North Slope—including plans for drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge. The budget also includes assumptions of lease sale receipts from the Arctic 

Refuge in 2004. 

FOREST SERVICE: FIRE PREVENTION AND RESOURCE PROTECTION

Defenders urges that at least 85 percent of funds for hazardous fuels activities 

on federal lands be spent within the zone nearest to communities and that substantial funding be provided directly to states, tribal and local authorities to support 

community wildfire preparedness activities. We urge significant reductions for Forest Products and Timber Road Construction, un-needed timber industry subsidies, 
180

and redirection of funds to recovery from prior timber sales, including to ecosystem 

restoration and Road Decommissioning and to resource protection programs including Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management; Wildlife, Fish, Water and Air Research; and Inventory and Monitoring. We urge Congress to reject the legislative 

proposals in the Administration’s ‘‘Healthy Forests Initiative’’ which would undermine the public’s ability to appeal and seek judicial review of projects. Finally, we 

strongly opposed addition of the damaging Stewardship End Results Contracting 

rider to the final fiscal year 2003 bill, and we urge the subcommittee to exercise 

rigorous oversight of this program to prevent it from being used as a vehicle for fiscal and environmental abuse. 

SPECIFIC PROJECTS

Defenders wishes to highlight two specific funding needs for efforts that contribute to endangered species protection. First, a broad group of interests, including 

environmental groups, sea otter researchers, agencies, fisheries group representatives, legislative staff, aquarium staff, and public stakeholders has determined that 

$1.675 million in research is needed each of the next five years to support recovery 

of the threatened sea otter whose population has suffered declines in 4 out of the 

last 5 years. Funding should be earmarked to the USGS Biological Research Division. Second, we request $600,000 for continued Nez Perce Tribe operation of gray 

wolf recovery, monitoring, research and outreach programs in Idaho: $450,000 for 

on-going programs and $150,000 for more staffing, updating of equipment and the 

monitoring program, holding additional public meetings and conducting necessary 

research. The Tribe has been successfully managing wolves since the species was 

reintroduced in 1995 and 1996. With the dramatic increase in the Idaho wolf population, funds are more critical than ever to achieve necessary research and management goals, particularly in light of recent federal actions to downlist, and eventually 

delist, wolves in the region. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF RACHEL CARSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this written testimony. I am writing on 

behalf of the Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, which is a nonprofit organization based in Maine. I am writing in regards to Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, which is a national wildlife refuge located on Maine’s southern coast. 

I hope that the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies (Committee on 

Appropriations) will support $4.5 million in land acquisition funding for Rachel Carson NWR in fiscal year 2004. This funding would enable the protection of multiple 

properties with willing landowners in several portions of the Refuge. Available properties are located in five of the Refuge’s ten units. These potential acquisitions 

would consolidate existing Refuge ownership and would complement land protection 

that has already taken place. 

Rachel Carson NWR is working to buffer sensitive lands from the pressures of development and is doing a great job of protecting critical habitat lands. Southern 

coastal Maine is under severe sprawl and development pressures. The Refuge has 

been able to permanently protect beautiful and important parts of the southern 

Maine coast for present and future generations to enjoy. 

On behalf of the Friends of Rachel Carson, we hope that you will provide $4.5 

million for Rachel Carson NWR from the Land and Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2004. Thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRONTERA AUDUBON SOCIETY

Frontera Audubon Society respectfully requests appropriation of $5 million from 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) in fiscal year 2004 for purchase 

of lands by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Texas. 

Half of this appropriation—$2.3 million—would fund acquisition of two specific 

tracts totaling 1,937 acres. 

The first of these tracts, called the ‘‘Southmost Tract’’, is 614 acres of farmland 

located south and east of the City of Brownsville. It is adjacent to or near several 

other protected areas, including six tracts of the Lower Rio Grande Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge totaling 4,586 acres, The Nature Conservancy’s 1,034-acre Lennox 

Foundation Southmost Preserve, the National Audubon Society’s 527-acre Sabal 
181

Palm Grove Sanctuary, and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s 68-acre Voshell 

Unit. The property includes not only agricultural land but also significant habitat 

along field edges, heavily vegetated frontage along the Rio Grande, and an oxbow 

lake. The farmland could be easily restored to native habitat, including stands of 

the native sabal palms (Sabal mexicana) which once lined the banks of the Rio 

Grande from the river’s mouth inland for approximately 80 miles. Today, little remains of this original palm forest. The protection and restoration of Texas’ native 

sabal palm community is one of the primary objectives of conservation partners at 

this site. The Refuge’s current holdings include only about one-third of the planned 

acreage of Sabal Palm Forest. 

The second tract, called the ‘‘Starr County Tract’’, is 1,323 acres of farmland and 

thornscrub that can be revegetated to restore Upper Valley Flood Forest. As we 

have pointed out in past years, the biotic communities found in Starr County, including Upper Valley Flood Forest, Chihuahuan Thorn Forest, and Ramaderos, are 

important and unique biotic communities that are significantly underrepresented in 

terms of the Refuge’s strategic protection plan. Purchase of this tract would raise 

Refuge holdings of the Upper Valley Flood Forest to close to 50 percent of the acquisition goal. Most fortunately, this property is held in clear title and thus does not 

present the severe title problems that have slowed acquisition of other sites in the 

area. While both tracts require revegetation, this important conservation tool has been 

used successfully for more than two decades on many thousands of acres in the Valley. Revegetation returns areas to functioning wildlife habitat and allows reestablishment of populations of rare plants. Among the many species of rare, threatened 

and endangered plants in Starr County are Runyon’s huaco, Vasey’s adelia, and 

Mission fiddlewood. Planting of these species could help forestall their future listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

As Frontera Audubon has documented in our past testimony, the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley is a biological treasurehouse. The Valley is home to half of all bird 

species found in the United States, including sixty species found in no other part 

of the country. The 300 species of butterflies outnumber any other part of the country except the Florida Everglades. In addition, there are more than 200 species of 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish and 1,200 species of plants. For these reasons, completing the ‘‘wildlife corridor’’ will be a significant contribution to meeting 

the Nation’s conservation goals. 

When completed, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge will protect nearly half of a planned 285,000 acre wildlife protection network—the ‘‘Wildlife 

Corridor’’—that reaches 275 miles along the Rio Grande River. Other lands and waters in the corridor are managed by state, county, and private conservation organizations as well as the Laguna Atascosa NWR. The entire planned complex will protect a modest 10 percent of the valley’s area. 

Permanent protection of wildlife habitat in the Lower Rio Grande Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge also provides economic benefits by helping the region to take advantage of growing nature tourism. Texas is already the number one birding destination in the United States and the Rio Grande Valley is the number one birding destination in the state. More than 200,000 people watch birds or other wildlife in the 

Lower Rio Grande Valley every year. These visitors spend more than $100 million 

and create or sustain more than 2,000 jobs. It has been calculated that each rare 

bird sighting accounts for approximately $100,000 per year in spending locally. 

Because the Refuge protects lands from the Gulf Coast to Fontana Dam, it draws 

visitors to all parts of the Valley. The result is welcome economic diversification in 

regions with otherwise limited economic resources. 

The Lower Rio Grande Valley needs the economic stimulus that nature tourism 

provide. Despite rapid population growth, the region is economically depressed, with 

unemployment chronically near 20 percent and a high proportion of residents living 

below the poverty level. Agriculture, which formerly dominated the economy, is in 

decline due to a prolonged drought, freezes that have discouraged the citrus industry, and other factors. 

Furthermore, the increased recreational opportunities provided by the Lower Rio 

Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge will contribute to a better quality of life for 

everyone. Already, the Refuge has opened 40,000 acres to the public for recreation; 

more will be opened as the management funding is appropriated. In addition to 

birding and canoeing, these acres are available for public hunting of deer, feral hogs, 

nilgai, and white-winged doves. 

Lands acquired for the refuge all come from willing sellers. 

Completion of the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR is critical to providing the open 

space and wildlife viewing opportunities underlying the Valley’s ecotourism economic development strategy. 
182

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior and Related 

Agencies Subcommittee on several funding items of importance to The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its 7.3 million supporters nationwide. As the 

largest animal protection organization in the country, The HSUS urges the Committee to address these priority issues in the fiscal year 2004 budget. 

Bear Feeding 

The HSUS strongly recommends that all federal land management agencies develop consistent policies with respect to prohibiting the feeding of bears on their 

land, including deliberate baiting practices. Bill or report language should direct the 

Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service to promulgate regulations 

banning the practice of feeding bears, just as the National Park Service and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service have done. 

Baiting involves the intentional placement of human food as a means of attracting 

bears for the purpose of shooting the animals. While 40 states have resident bear 

populations, only 10 states permit baiting. Baiting occurs on BLM and U.S. Forest 

Service lands in 9 states despite agency materials emphatically stating that feeding 

bears is harmful to the animals and hazardous to humans. 

Bears are naturally wary of humans. But once they acquire a taste for human 

food, they lose their wariness and become emboldened in approaching people and 

property. Human-fed bears cause millions of dollars in damage to property every 

year and can pose a serious safety threat to humans. A consistent policy should 

apply to all federal lands and for all forest users. Such a policy would have no impact on how states set bag limits, season lengths, and weapons rules for bear hunting which is a duty otherwise reserved to the states. 

Trapping on National Wildlife Refuges 

National Wildlife Refuges should not permit commercial and recreational trapping 

with inhumane traps. The National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) is the only category of federal lands specifically set aside for the protection and benefit of wildlife. 

According to a June 1997 report to the Congress, ‘‘Mammal Trapping within the 

National Wildlife Refuge System: 1992–1996,’’ the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administered 487 trapping programs on 281 refuges; thus, more than half of the nation’s 520 refuges permit some trapping. According to the report, ‘‘[e]ighty-five percent of the mammal trapping programs on refuges were conducted primarily for 

wildlife and facilities management reasons. The remaining 15 percent occurred primarily to provide recreational, commercial, or subsistence opportunities to the public.’’

In 2001, recreational trappers visited 80 units of the NWRS a total of 40,696 

times (number of trapper visits per unit ranged widely from 4 to 9,563). ‘‘Consumptive’’ uses as a whole (including recreational trapping and hunting) are allowed on 

the majority of NWRS units according to data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for fiscal year 2001. However, most people who enjoy the refuges are ‘‘non-consumptive’’ users, whose activities in the refuges include hiking, photography, and 

nature observation. In particular, in fiscal year 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service recorded over 36 million visits by non-consumptive users to the 485 refuges 

open to the public. Clearly, an elimination of recreational trapping on the NWRS 

would have negligible effect on the millions of Americans who use and enjoy the refuges every year. In fact, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s most recent national survey, people who appreciate wildlife in a non-consumptive manner, 

such as bird watchers, spent $40 billion in the year 2001 to travel and purchase 

equipment related to activities such as wildlife observation and photography. 

The American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, and the World Veterinary Organization have all declared leghold traps to 

be ‘‘inhumane.’’ These traps are designed to slam closed and grip tightly an animal’s 

leg or other body part. Lacerations, broken bones, joint dislocations and gangrene 

can result. Additional injuries result as the animal struggles to free itself, sometimes chewing off a leg or breaking teeth from biting the metal trap. Animals 

caught in leghold traps sometimes die from dehydration, starvation, exposure to 

sub-freezing temperatures, or predators. An animal may suffer for several days before a trapper returns to check a trap. 

These traps are as indiscriminate as they are inhumane. Any animal unlucky 

enough to stumble across a trap will be victimized by it. In addition to catching ‘‘target’’ animals, traps catch non-target, or ‘‘trash,’’ animals, such as family pets, eagles, 

and other protected species. A number of studies conducted by professionals from 

management agencies reveal that for every target animal caught in a steel-jawed 
183

leghold trap, there are one to ten non-target animals caught. This is an unacceptable level of by-catch. 

Voters in Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Washington have approved ballot measures to ban leghold traps. New Jersey and Florida have also 

banned the use of these traps, and many other states have severe restrictions on 

their use, including Connecticut and Rhode Island. A May 1999 national poll conducted by Peter Hart Research Associates, Inc., revealed that 84 percent of respondents oppose the use of steel-jawed leghold traps on National Wildlife Refuges. There 

are dozens of wildlife refuges in Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New 

Jersey, Washington, and Florida. There have been no adverse impacts on those refuges from the statewide bans. 

Neck snares are similarly inhumane and indiscriminate. Coyotes, foxes, and other 

animals trapped in neck snares often die slowly over hours or days by strangulation, 

as evidenced by necropsy data. Even when animals are anesthetized prior to snaring 

in laboratory tests of the snares’ humaneness—a procedure that decreases the time 

to loss of consciousness—foxes often take several minutes (up to 45 minutes in one 

study) to lose consciousness. 

In 1999, the House approved an amendment offered by Representative Sam Farr 

to bar the use of tax dollars to administer or promote the use of steel-jawed leghold 

traps or neck snares for commerce or recreation on units of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. The amendment allowed use of these traps for purposes of research, 

subsistence, conservation, or facilities protection. The House approved this measure 

by a bipartisan vote of 259–166. 

We urge the Committee to incorporate the language of the Farr amendment in 

the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations Act. It is a sensible, humane, and narrowly crafted provision. The amendment would not bar trapping on refuges. Other 

traps, including foot snares, Conibears, and box and cage traps, could be used for 

any purpose consistent with law and regulation on the refuges. The Farr amendment would not forbid the use of steel traps or neck snares. It would ban those two 

devices only for commercial and recreational purposes. 

Law Enforcement Division of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

After illegal drugs and arms, trade in wildlife parts is the third most lucrative 

smuggling enterprise in this country. New technology and a full complement of Special Agents are essential if law enforcement is to have any hope of effectively enforcing the nation’s endangered species trade laws. The HSUS strongly supports an increase of $5 million over the Administration’s request for U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Law Enforcement Operations and Maintenance. The recommended increase 

represents an additional $1 million for nine inspectors at our borders, and $4 million to hire twenty Special Agents. 

The Law Enforcement Division is currently undergoing a three-year rebuilding effort designed to bring the number of Special Agents to 253. These Special Agents 

investigate domestic and international wildlife crime and monitor wildlife trade. The 

Division of Law Enforcement is also charged with the responsibility of inspecting 

shipments at ports of entry. Wildlife inspectors play an invaluable role in stopping 

wildlife smuggling by inspecting wildlife shipments to ensure compliance with laws 

and treaties. 

Investigating sophisticated wildlife smuggling operations requires the latest in 

law enforcement technology. The Clark R. Bavin Wildlife Forensics Laboratory is capable of providing assistance in the prosecution of wildlife crimes by analyzing 

claws, teeth, feathers, tissue, blood, and other wildlife samples. The Clark R. Bavin 

Wildlife Forensics Laboratory is indispensable in the vigorous enforcement of the 

nation’s wildlife trade laws. The HSUS urges the Committee to expedite the $6.1 

million approved for fiscal year 2005 for the coming fiscal year. This increase will 

allow the lab to add scientists and staff, expand and improve its physical location, 

and continue its valuable work ahead of schedule. 

Protection for Walruses 

We urge this subcommittee to appropriate $500,000 in fiscal year 2004 to fund 

much-needed research on the Pacific walrus. Walruses are targeted by Native hunters for subsistence, despite a paucity of data regarding their current population status or population structure. Hundreds of walruses are killed annually; in some years 

this number has climbed to as many as 7,000. Moreover, in some hunting villages, 

females and their calves are preferentially killed, against the recommendation of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and standard management practice. A portion of 

these funds could also be used to assist and improve the Walrus Harvest Monitor 

Project, which collects basic management data. 
184

Multinational Species Conservation Fund 

The HSUS joins a broad based coalition of organizations in requesting an increase 

over the Administration’s request for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund 

(MNSCF). The MNSCF is a fund established by Congress to benefit African and 

Asian elephants, rhinos and tigers, great apes, and neotropical migratory birds. Last 

year, Congress demonstrated its commitment to the Fund by appropriating $7.8 million for the five programs. Unfortunately, the Administration requested only $7 million for the five funds in fiscal year 2004. We ask that you continue to support these 

highly threatened mammals and birds in fiscal year 2004 by appropriating $2 million each for the African Elephant Conservation Fund, the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, and the Great Ape Conservation Fund, $3 million for the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory 

Birds Conservation Fund, for a total of $14 million. 

While there are threats to the long-term survival of elephants, rhinos, tigers, 

great apes, and neotropical migratory birds, there have been improvements attributable to funds made available through the MNSCF. Grants made from the MNSCF 

provide a stable funding source that has leveraged over four times as much in additional contributions from range states, non-governmental organizations, and others. 

While The HSUS wholeheartedly supports increased funding for the MNSCF, we 

are concerned about past incidents and future opportunities for funds from these 

conservation programs to be allocated to promote trophy hunting, trade in animal 

parts, and other consumptive uses—including live capture for trade, captive breeding, and entertainment for public display industry—under the guise of conservation 

for these animals. We would like to see grants made to projects that are consistent 

with the spirit of the law. 

Wild Horse and Burro Program 

Wild horses and burros are a public trust greatly beloved by the American people. 

Consequently, we strongly believe that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

should be given the direction and resources it needs to ensure the health of wild 

horse and burro herds and the public lands they inhabit, as well as the welfare of 

the horses and burros that are removed from the range. 

During fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Bureau of Land Management’s 

Wild Horse and Burro Program received a substantial increase to their annual operating budget. This increase was to be used to implement BLM’s four-year plan to 

achieve appropriate management levels (AML’s) in all herd management areas, 

principally through an increase in the number of horses and burros removed from 

the public lands. The HSUS supports in principle the BLM’s attempt to establish 

a national, strategic approach to wild horse management. We strongly believe, however, that many of the AML’s set by the BLM exaggerate the impact of wild horses 

on the public lands, and do not provide wild horses and burros with the fair share 

of public land resources to which they are entitled under the law. We also fear that 

the planned removals will threaten the viability of these populations. To adequately 

address these concerns, the BLM should carry out a programmatic environmental 

impact analysis of the impacts of wild horses, burros, and livestock on the conditions 

in herd management areas, and of the proposed population reductions on the viability of wild horse and burro populations on public lands. 

Currently, however, the BLM’s plan to achieve AML has been stalled by the rapid 

filling of the holding facilities available for horses removed by the range. As has 

happened repeatedly, the budget and attention of the Wild Horse and Burro Program are being diverted from management of wild populations on the public lands 

to maintenance of wild horses and burros in captivity. There is a long-term solution, 

which only awaits agency implementation that can help restore the agency’s focus 

to wild horses and the land. With the strong support of The HSUS and this committee, BLM-sponsored research has produced a one-shot, one-to-two-year contraceptive vaccine for wild horses. Wide application of this vaccine, known as PZP, would 

be a humane, publicly acceptable, cost-efficient means for reducing the number of 

horses that must be removed from the public lands. Accordingly, we ask the committee to insert the following language into the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill: ‘‘The BLM is strongly encouraged to implement immunocontraception to 

help control populations of wild horses on the public lands.’’

In addition to the more traditional threats faced by wild horses and burros, which 

include habitat destruction, wildfires, and cattle ranching encroachment, wild horses 

are coming under pressure from the increasing demand for horsemeat as a result 

of the ‘‘mad cow’’ disease threat in Europe. The BLM documented that in 1999 hundreds of wild horses that had been adopted through the BLM’s adoption program 

were sold into slaughter, despite the congressionally mandated prohibition on such 

action. 
185

Because of pressure on wild horses and burros from decreasing habitat, the policy 

of aggressive removals, and mad cow disease, we urge the committee to once again 

include the following standard language in the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill: ‘‘The appropriations made herein shall not be available for the destruction 

of healthy, unadopted, wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau of Land 

Management or its contractors.’’ We also request $100,000 in additional funding to 

be allocated to the preparation of a comprehensive NEPA review. Finally, we urge 

this committee to allocate $500,000 in additional funding to the BLM for pre-titling 

compliance monitoring of adoptions, adopter mentoring programs, and other means 

of ensuring that adopted wild horses and burros are treated consistently with the 

intent of the Wild Horse and Burro Protection Act and are not sent to slaughter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)

General Comments 

The Association is pleased that the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is more than the fiscal year 2003 

enacted budget. We understand the reasons for certain reductions, however we also 

understand that if our Fish and Wildlife program needs are not met today, it will 

be far more expensive in the future. We are most concerned that some of the more 

significant budget reductions are for State fish and wildlife administered programs, 

the cutting of which seems inconsistent with building strong partnerships with the 

States. 

The Association is particularly concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request 

further reduces the State Wildlife Grants account in fiscal year 2004 to $59.9 million. While the Association is appreciative of those funds, there is a demonstrated 

need for at least $350 million per year. We strongly recommend that the $59.9 million in fiscal year 2004 be increased to $125 million, for apportionment to the State 

fish and wildlife agencies under the formula allocation used in fiscal year 2002, in 

order to achieve significant progress toward $350 million. 

We fully recognize the difficulty of providing adequate funding for conservation 

while at the same time meeting national defense and homeland security needs. Unfortunately, there are long-term consequences to delaying conservation work. Cooperative programs with States multiply efforts through matching funds and, therefore, should be given high priority. 

The Association believes the programs within the FWS that offer the following 

characteristics are consistent with its basic mission and afford the highest benefit 

to fish and wildlife resources and the cooperating State fish wildlife agencies: 

(1) establish true State/Federal partnerships which recognize the primacy of State 

jurisdiction for fish and resident wildlife; 

(2) offer significant leverage of non-Federal funds through cooperative programs; 

(3) support efforts to prevent species and their habitats from becoming threatened 

or endangered; 

(4) provide fish and wildlife associated outdoor recreation opportunities, including 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and environmental education which serve a 

large number of people each year; 

(5) provide important economic and environmental benefits to large segments of 

the American people; 

(6) reinvest and enhance existing public land holdings/refuges; 

(7) empower States to determine priority management action at the State level; 

and 

(8) provide adequate flexibility for local program adjustment. 

The Association encourages Congress to measure programs against these criteria 

and ensure that programs that measure up are adequately and appropriately funded. 

The Association is concerned about any FWS programs or activities that compromise State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife and/or lack 

funding and commitment to secure meaningful management on the ground. The 

FWS needs to coordinate closely with the respective State fish and wildlife agencies 

to avoid compromising State authorities and to facilitate the cooperative design and 

conduct of research and management programs. Cooperative efforts between the 

FWS and the State fish and wildlife agencies will play a critical role in achieving 

land and resource objectives for species and related resources. The Association recommends that funds made available to the States provide discretion to the States 
186

in meeting fish and wildlife information and management needs, wherever possible, 

and where not possible, to emphasize close cooperation with the States to reduce 

duplicating or conflicting programs which are both costly and confusing to the public. 

Consistent, dedicated and assured funding for state-based broader fish and wildlife conservation, wildlife-associated recreation and conservation education programs 

is vitally needed in the states. Programs at the state level are required in order to 

preclude the need to list species (under the Endangered Species Act) by addressing 

life needs and habitat requirements in response to early warning signs of decline. 

The Association urges Congress and the Administration to work cooperatively with 

the states in the design and enactment of legislation which would provide $350 Million annually in assured funding for the full array of fish and wildlife programs. The 

Association is committed to working with Congress to identify an appropriate source 

of funds for this vitally needed endeavor, whether it be revenues from Outer Continental Shelf Gas and Oil leases, or other sources. 

A Proposal for an Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership Program 

Public and private aquaculture interests have suffered from an almost total lack 

of U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved aquatic drugs and chemicals. For 

the past seven years, the FWS, State fish and wildlife agencies, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have engaged in a cooperative project 

to gain approval for high priority use of eight drugs in aquaculture. This project is 

nearing its end, and many of the project’s goals will have been met within the next 

year. However, not all the necessary broad approvals for these critically needed 

drugs will have been obtained. Continued work will be needed on gaining additional 

approvals and developing new aquaculture drugs to meet existing and new disease 

and aquaculture problems. 

Unfortunately, no one agency currently has responsibility to obtain the approvals, 

develop new drugs, and coordinate continuation and expansion of this drug approval 

effort. To meet this critical need, the Association recommends that $450,000 in new 

funds be added to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s fiscal year 2004 budget for the 

development and implementation of an ‘‘Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership’’ program. This program would have responsibility to coordinate its efforts with 

those of other interested Federal, State, and private agencies and organizations to 

meet the current and future needs for safe and effective aquaculture drugs. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act Activities 

The Association strongly supports the FWS request of $49.56 million for the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). However, Congress authorized a 

funding level of $55 million for this important conservation program in fiscal year 

2004 and the Association recommends full funding. The authorization level for this 

program will increase by $5 million each year. This cooperative program, requiring 

at least a 1:1 non-federal match, is one of the most successful, non-regulatory, incentive based programs within all of government and the program has shown unprecedented success in restoring wetlands, waterfowl and other migratory bird populations. The program has more than 2,000 partners from communities, governments 

(including of Canada and Mexico), nonprofit organizations, States, and academia. 

The program has put over 1,114 projects on the ground in North America, including 

a total of more than of 15.9 million acres of wetlands and associated uplands in the 

United States and Canada, with a return of $2.88 for every dollar the Federal government has invested to date. The Association strongly urges that Congress appropriate the full $55 million authorized for the NAWCA in the FWS fiscal year 2004 

budget. 

The Association believes that evaluation of on-the-ground wetland habitat enhancement activities under the NAWCA, the Farm Bill and other programs are extremely important and supports adequate funding for this evaluation. 

Migratory Bird Management 

The Association is disappointed to see that migratory bird management is reduced 

from with the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. This has occurred during a time when 

public interest in migratory birds is at an all-time high, and when the need for management programs is increasing. With the broad support for the North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative by conservation organizations and the States, the Association believes the FWS should continue to place a high priority and budget emphasis on migratory bird management. 

Inflation and increased operating costs have escalated and enhanced funding in 

recent years has been absorbed in these areas. Additional funding is needed to facilitate meeting program objectives for migratory bird conservation. The Association 

recommends an increase of $3 million to address this need, and urges the FWS to 
187

cooperate with the State fish and wildlife agencies to begin implementation of the 

Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan, Shorebird Conservation Plan and the Partners in Flight Plan. All of these plans are complete and funds are needed to put 

these programs on the ground for the birds and the many people who enjoy them. 

These plans are particularly critical as many nongame migratory bird populations 

are declining, but not yet endangered. These plans are intended to provide actions 

to avoid listing these populations as threatened or endangered while there still is 

time. It makes financial, biological and political sense to take actions early on when 

it costs less and there are more biological options. The economic benefits provided 

by migratory birds are far in excess of the funding these programs received. The Association strongly supports the request for $1 million to begin an aircraft 

replacement program to support migratory bird surveys, which are important for 

setting hunting regulations. We strongly recommend these funds become part of the 

FWS budget base for this program. The Association strongly supports the requested funding ($550,000) in the FWS 

budget to enable the Service to appropriately assess (through band reporting) the 

effects on harvest of proposed early and late season extensions to duck hunting seasons. As duck populations continue to grow, there is more demand for additional 

hunting opportunities. The FWS and the States need to monitor and evaluate the 

impacts of these extensions on harvest distribution and rates of harvest in order to 

assess the effects of the experimental season extensions. The Association strongly 

recommends that these funds become part of the FWS budget base for this program. 

The Association also strongly recommends an addition of $250,000 to the migratory bird program to enable the FWS to begin to modernize its database on mourning doves. While the mourning dove is one of our most popular gamebirds, there is 

a demonstrated need for better population and harvest survey information for this 

species. Again, the Association requests that these funds (at appropriate future levels) become part of the FWS base budget request. 

Since the early 1980s, insufficient effort has been devoted to improving data collection related to the management of webless migratory game birds. There is a demonstrated need for better population and harvest survey information for species such 

as woodcock, mourning doves, sandhill cranes and rails. The Association strongly 

contends webless migratory game bird management is an integral and important 

part of the Service’s programs and responsibilities, and recommends full funding of 

$750,000 for the Webless Migratory Gamebird Program. 

The Association is pleased to recognize Congress’ and the Administration’s continuing commitment to the implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), including support for the 12 habitat and 3 species Joint 

Ventures. However, the Association reasserts its position that a need exists for additional funds to enable the FWS to provide adequate assistance for the Joint Ventures. In the fiscal year 2003 Appropriation Act, Congress recognized the need for 

increasing support for Joint Ventures and urged the Service to request additional 

funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget. Joint Ventures are the ‘‘engine’’ of plan implementation and these partnerships need to be supported. Most Joint Ventures are 

under-funded, but the Association is pleased that Joint Venture funding has been 

increased and supports the Service’s request for $10.3 million in fiscal year 2004 for 

the Joint Venture program. Congress anticipated that by fiscal year 2004 there 

should be an appropriation of $10.4 million annually for existing habitat and species 

Joint Ventures. In addition to direct habitat protection, restoration and enhancement, Joint Ventures engender private-public partnerships and communication in 

pursuit of their conservation objectives. This is good business, good relationships 

and good conservation and a success story to be emulated. 

The Association continues to recommend that Congress appropriate an additional 

$5 million to collect data and monitor 16 priority goose and brant populations across 

North America. Currently there are no operational breeding population surveys or 

pre-harvest banding programs on populations of Arctic geese. This information is 

needed for management of these migratory, international resources. 

For several years, Congress has added $1 million to the FWS budget to assist several states in managing depredating geese, particularly through partnerships with 

USDA-APHIS (Wildlife Services) and the agriculture community. This add-on was 

absent from the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill and the Association 

urges Congress to restore that additional $1 million in the fiscal year 2004 appropriation for FWS. 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) Funding for States 

The Association is concerned with the proposed reduction (from the fiscal year 

2003) in the Administration’s request for Cooperative Endangered Species grants to 

the States. The reduction of $2.3 million will continue to erode this program. Tradi-
188

tional Section 6 grants to the States remain funded at $7.5 million, which is grossly 

insufficient to satisfy growing needs. Cooperative efforts between the FWS and the 

State fish and wildlife agencies are the surest way to meet objectives for species recovery and conservation under the Act. The Association recommends that the increase for assistance in this fund be made available to the States through a mechanism that maximizes spending discretion to the States, such as a State Fish and 

Wildlife Agency ESA Conservation and Recovery Block Grant Program, with the individual States deciding the best mix of information, incentives and acquisitions to 

achieve habitat conservation and recovery objectives. Much of the Section 6 grant 

funds in fiscal year 2004 are already earmarked for program needs such as HCPs 

and CCAs. While these are certainly meritorious and useful purposes, the Association’s first priority for Section 6 Grants to the States remains for those dollars 

which allow the States the greatest discretion in satisfying priority needs. 

The Association strongly supports and urges Congress to appropriate an addi- tional $10 million to Section 6 (Cooperative Endangered Species Fund) for traditional grants to the states, particularly in the western United States. The funds 

would be allocated within the State grants program to benefit at-risk species for example, in western grasslands, shrub-steppe, Hawaiian Islands and Sierra Nevada 

foothills. The funds would be used by 19 western States to aggressively pursue 

proactive, broad-scale and interstate conservation efforts, including partnerships 

through State Conservation Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances or other agreements with willing landowners 

and public, State, Tribal, and other land management agencies. Funding under this 

program will be used to support actions by all partners in a given project. 

The Association also strongly supports and urges Congress to appropriate an addi- tional $7.4 million to Section 6 (Cooperative Endangered Species Fund) being requested by 11 western states, to be allocated within the appropriate State grant programs to fulfill the requirements of the Black-tailed Prairie Dog Conservation 

Agreement, developed in 1999. Key to the agreement is forging partnerships with 

local interests and developing and implementing State-specific management plans 

that contribute to conserving the species, while maintaining management at the 

State and local level. An integral part of each State plan is providing incentives for 

private landowner participation. Private lands are crucial to meeting range-wide 

population objectives identified by the Multi-State Conservation Team. These funds 

will allow the States to complete and implement their management plans, and provide an incentives program for private landowners. Absent this Federal funding, 

listing of the species under the ESA is inevitable, with the consequent social and 

economic disruption. 

The Association is pleased with the seriousness at which the FWS is proceeding 

with the delisting process for the gray wolf population in the Northern Rockies. 

That population has met all recovery criteria and the three states of Idaho, Montana 

and Wyoming will soon complete their requisite state management planning efforts. 

As management authority transitions from the Federal government to the affected 

States, there is an immediate and long-term need to continue rigorous monitoring 

of that region’s wolf population. Heretofore, the FWS has had that responsibility. 

The fiscal year 2003 FWS budget included a $250,000 Congressional add-on for the 

State of Idaho to launch this effort within that state. The Association supports this 

kind of funding assistance to all affected states, especially when it involves species 

of national significance, and, therefore, recommends $1.2 million be added to the 

FWS’ fiscal year 2004 budget for wolf monitoring activities in the states of Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming, with that amount being equally distributed among the 

three states. This will ensure a coordinated and consistent approach to monitoring 

the wolf population in the Northern Rockies during this critical period. 

The Association also strongly supports the Administration’s request for $40 million for the Landowner Incentive Program. The Association appreciates that FWS 

has engaged the State fish and wildlife agencies in developing the criteria for this 

competitive program. The quality of the proposals submitted for first year money 

(fiscal year 2002), and the fact that proposals exceed available funds, exemplify the 

merits of and need for this program. Consistent funding is essential to be able to 

work effectively with private landowners, and the Association urges the FWS to continue to work with the states to bring greater assurance to the availability of these 

funds. 

The Association is concerned with the reductions in the Endangered Species Act 

Recovery Program. Endangered species recovery efforts can ultimately lead to 

delisting actions that result in significant benefits to species through State management efforts. Delisting of recovered species needs to receive priority attention and 

should be based on science and biology rather than other inappropriate factors. The 

targeted programs for decreases represent important partnerships with state fish 
189

and wildlife agencies that should continue. The Association recommends that Congress increase the amount allocated to recovery efforts in the FWS budget request. 

Wildlife Conservation and Appreciation Fund 

The Association is disappointed that the Administration deleted funding for the 

Partnership for Wildlife Act. Because these funds were matched equally by both 

State and private monies, this effective program leveraged substantial dollars. We 

expect these cooperative proposals to increase dramatically in the years ahead. The 

Association recommends restoring and enhancing this program at the $2 million 

level. 

Refuges and Wildlife 

The Association is pleased to see an increase of $25.5 million requested in the fiscal year 2004 budget for National Wildlife Refuge operations and maintenance. 

Even with this increase, there is a tremendous backlog of funding needs that will 

have to be addressed in the future to successfully meet the Service’s NWR System 

mission of conserving fish and wildlife. Several years ago the Association, along with 

16 other organizations, created the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE) specifically to address this growing backlog. As a result of this cooperation, 

the CARE group developed a plan of modest increases for Refuge Operations and 

Maintenance budgets that will enable the Refuge System to be fully functional by 

its 100th anniversary in 2003. The Association continues to support the CARE recommendations to eliminate the backlog of Refuge Operations and Maintenance, and 

strongly urges these recommendations be used to guide future budget requests. 

A significant problem still exists with regard to brucellosis, which affects both 

wildlife and domestic livestock and is present in elk and bison in the Greater Yellowstone area, located within the states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The Association understands that FWS and the National Park Service intend again this year 

to contribute to a research program conducted by the Biological Resources Division 

(USGS) to improve the vaccination program for brucellosis in elk and bison. This 

continuing need should clearly be carried as a budget item rather than identified 

as a program that will be funded on an ‘‘ability to pay’’ basis by the several agencies. This has been a concern since the onset of this project, yet no attempt has been 

made to date to correct this deficiency. The Association strongly supports this research endeavor, but remains concerned about the level of cooperation with the involved states. We urge the commitment by these several USDI Bureaus to this 

project be affirmed in their respective budgets through some type of formal agreement, in full cooperation with the states involved. We look forward to this being reflected in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. Brucellosis recognizes no boundaries 

and only a fully cooperative program will likely be successful. 

The Association is pleased that $500,000 has been requested to address Chronic 

Wasting Disease on the refuge system; however, much more will be required to deal 

with this epizootic. 

In late 1997, the United States entered into an agreement with the European 

Union that identified a process to develop and test more effective and humane alternative trapping devices used by wildlife professionals to manage certain wildlife 

populations (e.g. for research, to reestablish species extirpated from prior habitats, 

and to protect endangered species). An active research program is being developed 

at the USDA’s National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins, Colorado. Given 

the significant role that trapping plays in management of the NWR System for research, protecting habitat, roads and other investments, and managing predation 

and epizootic diseases, the Association recommends that $250,000 be added to the 

fiscal year 2004 FWS budget to support this research effort. 

With respect to the use of certain types of traps on NWRs, the Association strongly opposes any legislative language that would prohibit the FWS from funding the 

use or authorization of the use of certain of these devices on NWRs. The Association, 

along with several other conservation organizations, has successfully defeated proposed amendments that would restrict FWS authority with respect to traps in previous years. The FWS needs to retain the discretion to use these devices to protect 

and conserve endangered species, migratory birds, and significant habitats; protect 

buildings, roads, and other facilities; and to protect public health and safety through 

managing epizootics such as rabies. These decisions are best made by the FWSNWR manager working cooperatively with the State fish and wildlife agency, which 

has legal responsibility for the management of most furbearing wildlife species. 

The Association supports the efforts of the FWS for increased public visitation to 

the Nation’s refuges. We believe that each refuge is a unique area that varies in 

its capability to support carefully planned and managed user pressure. However, increased public use has the potential to adversely impact the fish and wildlife re-
190

sources of the refuges and some uses may not be compatible under the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. The Association would support 

the establishment of a research program, including cooperative grants, to support 

carrying capacity studies that would help develop innovative management measures 

to ensure the sustainability of the resources on these properties. The study design 

and preparation, however, must be done with the full cooperation of the appropriate 

State fish and wildlife agency. The program should be a joint effort utilizing the 

State fish and wildlife agency within the State where the Federal refuge resides, 

the refuge management staff and the Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Research Units. 

Since state fish and wildlife agencies manage comparable state lands, they have 

substantial experience in assessing impacts to species and habitats and balancing 

competing uses of these types of habitats, the principal use of which is fish and 

wildlife conservation. 

Law Enforcement 

Federal law enforcement is an important tool in fish and wildlife management 

and a critical element in complementing and filling gaps within State fish and wildlife law enforcement programs. While Law Enforcement enjoyed a modest appropriations increase in fiscal year 2003, a past history of flat funding has left this important program significantly underfunded. The number of agent vacancies remains at 

an unacceptable level because managers continue to absorb increasing operating 

costs by keeping vacant positions unfilled. The fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 

increase was the first of a 3-year plan to restore funding for law enforcement to acceptable levels (a $10 million requested increase per year for 3 years was deemed 

to be necessary). The Association has urged the Service to stay on course with this 

plan and request funding for law enforcement staffing at more appropriate levels 

in future years. The Association is therefore disappointed and concerned that the 

fiscal year 2004 budget indicates only a minimal requested increase of $700,000. 

The Association urges Congress to increase funding for FWS law enforcement to a 

total program level of $60 million. This increase will put the Service’s law enforcement program back on track to fulfill its needs. 

While the Association is vitally interested in seeing all FWS law enforcement vacancies filled and the workforce then kept at authorized levels, we are fully aware 

that 40 percent of the FWS’ officers are expected to retire by the end of 2005. If 

not vigilant in its response, the FWS could exacerbate an already acute workforce 

situation—one that could have serious ramifications to State fish and wildlife agencies. The Association was pleased to learn the FWS is developing a comprehensive 

five-year plan to guide the decisions to address the challenges this poses. We encourage Congress to monitor this planning effort to make certain there is no lessening of emphasis on this critical program, and furthermore, that sufficient opportunity for state participation be afforded throughout this process to ensure their 

needs and concerns are adequately addressed. 

International Conservation 

The Association recommends that Congress fund the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act at its full authorization of $5 million. This legislation passed both 

houses of Congress in 2000 with strong bi-partisan support. It provides a broadspectrum approach to bird conservation sought for a long time by game bird and 

non-gamebird advocates alike. The NMBCA has the potential to serve as a major 

delivery mechanism to further develop bird conservation strategies for songbirds, 

shorebirds, waterbirds, and other neotropical bird species in need of conservation action. 

Fisheries and Habitat Conservation 

The Association recognizes the impressive progress the Service’s Fisheries Program has made in working collaboratively with the Association and the various 

States, as well as with other partners in industry, academia, conservation organizations and Tribal organizations, to develop its Strategic Vision and to develop strategic plans for each of its Regions. In furtherance of this Vision and the underlying 

relationships with States and other partners, the Association supports the increases 

for the Fisheries Program proposed in the President’s budget request. The Association supports the proposed $5 million increase for hatchery operations, which are 

badly needed, but is concerned with the proposed allocation of these funds to the 

recovery of threatened and endangered species (∂$1.6 million), restoration of key 

species in accordance with prescriptions in fishery management plans (∂$2.5 million), and development of additional scientific capabilities at hatcheries, Fish Technology Centers and Fish Health Centers (∂$0.9 million). Absent from this proposed 

allocation is the large and important segment of the Service’s hatchery program that 

produces fish to meet the Federal mitigation obligations at Federal water projects. 
191

The production from these mitigation hatcheries is critically important to the states, 

both recreationally and economically, and fulfills the Federal obligations that were 

agreed to by Congress when these water projects were authorized. The Association 

urges Congress to specify that the $5 million increase for hatchery operations be 

used proportionally for the Service’s mitigation hatcheries, as well as other appropriate uses of hatchery production. The Association supports the Service’s request for an additional $3.0 million for 

hatchery maintenance, which will begin to enable the Hatchery System to address 

priority needs in its water management facilities across the entire System. However, 

the Association believes that this amount is inadequate to significant address the 

current $300 million hatchery facilities maintenance backlog. FWS hatchery facilities average 55 years in age and much of the infrastructure is outmoded and in serious need of repair. For several years, these maintenance needs have been largely 

ignored and hatchery facilities have been allowed to deteriorate to an alarming 

level. The Association strongly urges Congress to provide an additional $7 million 

in the Service’s fiscal year 2004 appropriation for hatchery maintenance. Furthermore, the Association asks the Congress to support the President’s request for an 

additional $1.0 million to combat aquatic nuisance species, which the Fisheries Program will use to support interdepartmental and intergovernmental efforts to control 

and eradicate alien invaders. 

The Association also requests the Congress to provide additional funds that will 

enable the Fisheries Program to strengthen and expand its efforts to conserve and 

restore critical aquatic habitats that support valuable recreational fisheries. Specifically, the Association asks that the Congress include an additional $3 million in the 

base appropriations of the Fisheries Program to eliminate additional barriers to fish 

passage and fish migration nationwide. The Service has recently reported impressive progress in its fish passage program—a program that is clearly achieving impressive results in increasing the abundance and distribution of native fishes and 

in providing additional angling opportunity. Furthermore, the Association asks the Congress to appropriate an additional $15 

million for the Service’s Fisheries Program to work with the southeastern States 

and its other partners in developing the Southeast Aquatic Resources Partnership, 

which is making progress toward development of a comprehensive plan that will 

protect, conserve, and restore aquatic resources including habitats in the Southeast. 

This partnership of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and all states in Region IV 

is preparing a report that will provide a blueprint for fisheries which will incorporate objectives in six issue areas: (1) Public Use, (2) Fishery Mitigation, (3) Imperiled fish and aquatic species, (4) Interjurisdictional fisheries, (5) Aquatic habitat 

conservation, and (6) Aquatic nuisance species. The Association recommends Congress appropriate $15 million to assist the Fish and Wildlife Service and all southeastern states in this endeavor in which local biologists would examine local needs 

with respect to the six issue areas and those findings would be consolidated and 

prioritized at the state level. This work would facilitate timely implementation of 

future regional programs that may develop as a result of the Partnership’s final report. 

Further, the Association requests an additional $770,000 be appropriated to FWS 

in their fisheries program for the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission 

Migratory Fish Restoration Program to continue efforts to restore migratory fish in 

the four state basin of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. 

In addition, the Association supports the President’s request for an additional $9.6 

million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. This program has proven 

enormously popular with America’s private landowners and has an impressive history of conserving and restoring hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands, riparian habitats and upland habitats, as well as opening thousands of miles of streams 

and rivers to fish passage. No program in the Service has been more successful in 

achieving on-the-ground results and in benefiting fish and wildlife and the millions 

of Americans who enjoy hunting and fishing, as well as non-consumptive uses and 

benefits of fish and wildlife. In addition, the Association asks the Congress to appropriate an additional $4 million to enhance the Service’s Coastal Program, which 

much like the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, has delivered tangible improvements in wetland and upland habitats in America’s coastal states, where upwards of 75 percent of our nation’s population resides. 

No less importantly, the Association respectfully asks the Congress to provide $2 

million increases to each of two Ecological Services programs that have essentially 

been level-funded for the past decade and unable to address growing resource challenges. A $2 million increase in the Environmental Contaminants Program would 

enable the program to meet basic needs in its efforts to address accidental releases 

or spills of oil and other hazardous chemicals, and to work collaboratively with the 
192

Environmental Protection Agency and States in reviewing and promulgating water 

quality standards and criteria for aquatic organisms. A $2 million increase in Ecological Service’s Coordination Act program would enable the Service to participate 

more fully in important planning processes and decisions relative to hydropower and 

wind power, as well as mineral extraction. For the past decade inflation and stable 

funding have combined to reduce the program’s involvement and effectiveness in 

this important function and in ensuring sustainable development coupled with wise 

stewardship of fish and wildlife resources. 

Invasive Non-Native Species 

The Association is concerned over the lack of priority placed on invasive non-native species in the fiscal year 2004 budget. The program of the FWS, as well as 

other federal agencies, lacks focus and therefore is likely to fall short of expectations 

to address the most significant problems caused by some invasive non-native species. The Association requests an additional $10 million be included in the fiscal 

year 2004 appropriation to be distributed among several FWS programs to help address a significant and serious domestic and international threat to indigenous fish 

and wildlife species. The Association strongly supports the FWS efforts to address 

high priority invasive species that are serious problems for fish and wildlife habitat. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources strongly supports efforts by 

Congress to continue the State Wildlife Grants (SWG) program. We urge the Subcommittee to allocate $125 million to the State Wildlife Grants program for fiscal 

year 2004 and to take measures to establish a long-term funding mechanism for this 

important program. 

Congress created the State Wildlife Grant Program (SWG) in 2001 to protect and 

manage those wildlife species of greatest conservation need. This program seeks to 

prevent wildlife from becoming endangered and ensure a bright future for the nation’s wildlife. Its proactive approach to wildlife and habitat conservation will save 

both wildlife and taxpayer dollars because it protects species before it’s too late. 

This program is a first step to addressing the unmet needs of hundreds of species 

that fall through the cracks because they are neither abundant game species or rare 

and endangered. 

Minnesota’s State Wildlife Grants program funds a range of projects across the 

state. Below are examples of current projects. 

—Monitoring Goshawk Nesting Territories 

—Timber Rattlesnake Recovery in Minnesota’s Blufflands 

—Rare Animals in the Glacial Lakes and Moraines Landscape of Central Minnesota 

—Statewide Mussel Resource Survey 

—A Landscape Approach to Grassland Bird Conservation in Minnesota 

—Critical Wildlife Habitat Acquisition 

—Identification and Protection of Important Bird Areas 

The State Wildlife Grants Program was established as part of the Conservation 

Trust Fund in fiscal year 2001. SWG has strong bipartisan support and leverages 

federal funds by requiring a state match. In order to participate in the SWG Program, each state is required to develop a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan 

by October 2005. These plans will demonstrate the need for long-term, predictable 

funding for wildlife conservation, and guide the use of future SWG funds. 

In addition to funding the State Wildlife Grants program at the $125 million level 

for 2004, please consider decreasing the required state match for this program from 

50 percent to 25 percent, as is the case with the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell/Johnson, and Wallop/Breaux programs. The purpose of this program is to partner with 

states to protect the wide array of wildlife species under their jurisdiction, especially 

those species that are not hunted or fished. This area of wildlife conservation has 

historically been under-funded, and it is very challenging for us to identify a good, 

stable source of matching funds this early in the program’s life. Also, please consider 

supporting reliable, long-term funding for state-based wildlife efforts, as was originally intended with the Conservation and Restoration Act of 2001 (CARA). 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments. 
193

PEPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY FISHERIES AND

WILDLIFE PROGRAMS

The National Association of University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs 

(NAUFWP) appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony concerning the fiscal 

year 2004 budget for the U.S. Department of the Interior. NAUFWP represents approximately 55 university programs and their 440 faculty members, scientists, and 

extension specialists, and over 9,200 undergraduates and graduate students working 

to enhance the science and management of fisheries and wildlife resources. 

NAUFWP is interested in strengthening fisheries and wildlife education, research, 

extension, and international programs to benefit fish, wildlife, and habitats on public land. We understand the many pressing needs of the nation at this time, but 

we stress that a nation strong in its international role must be strong in its support 

and conservation of its natural resources, including fish and wildlife. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

We are concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request for State Wildlife 

Grants will diminish the ability of state wildlife agencies to conserve fish, wildlife, 

and habitat, and to prevent further declines in at-risk fish and wildlife populations. 

State Wildlife Grants were established in fiscal year 2001 with a promise from Congress to increase the amount of funding for the program by 10 percent a year over 

six years. However, this program was cut in fiscal year 2003 to $60 million, a 29 

percent reduction from the $85 million appropriated in fiscal year 2002. The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 request is $60 million. NAUFWP strongly recommends 

that State Wildlife Grant funding be increased to $125 million in fiscal year 2004, 

for apportionment to the State fish and wildlife agencies under the formula allocation used in fiscal year 2002, in order to achieve significant progress toward the 

demonstrated conservation need of at least $350 million per year. 

While we understand that Congress must make difficult programmatic decisions 

during this time of fiscal constraints, it is critical to recognize that State Wildlife 

Grants ultimately save federal dollars by enabling states to be proactive and avert 

conservation catastrophes. State Grants further maximize wildlife and taxpayer dollars for the benefit of millions of Americans by leveraging additional funds from 

states and NGOs. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DIVISION

NAUFWP is very concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Biological Resources Division (BRD), $138.875 million, is a reduction from the fiscal 

year 2003 enacted level of $139.816 million. This reduction is due primarily to the 

lack of continued funding for several Congressional initiatives, most of which are 

intended to provide critical, timely information to improve natural resource management in the United States. Even with funding for these programs however, BRD has 

been dramatically under-funded for years. Adjusted for inflation, BRD would have 

to be funded at over $200 million to maintain programs at 1994 levels. In addition, 

BRD is proposing to absorb approximately $1.9 million of $3.4 million in uncontrollable costs in the fiscal year 2004 budget. This equates to a significant loss in operational funds for BRD. We recommend that Congress appropriate $200 million for 

the Biological Resources Division to allow critical monitoring and research projects 

to continue, to eradicate the budget decline in real dollars that the program has accumulated, and to fully fund uncontrollable costs. 

We support the Administration’s requested increase of $1 million to expand research on chronic wasting disease, a fatal disease in deer and elk; the $500,000 increase in amphibian research; and the $4 million increase to expand invasive species research and begin developing a prototype model for a national early detection 

network for invasive species in US terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. At the same 

time, however, NAUFWP urges Congress and BRD not to diminish funding directed 

at ongoing research needs that may not, at present, be garnering the public attention that the above issues are, but for which there remain many unanswered questions. 

We appreciate the Administration’s recognition of the value of the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and support the $1 million increase in 

funding requested for fiscal year 2004. However, we also support Congressional direction in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill to BRD to further refine 

the objectives for NBII and clearly define a strategy for achieving those objectives. 

NBII, a broad, collaborative program that provides increased access to data and information on the nation’s biological resources, is a good example of what can be 
194

achieved by emphasizing partnerships with academic institutions and others, provided those partnerships are meaningful. 

NAUFWP applauds Congress’ efforts to fully fund the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (the Units). Full funding and staffing for the Units was achieved 

in fiscal year 2001, but since then available fiscal resources have been eroded, principally due to uncontrollable costs. Uncontrollable costs for the Units are disproportionately high compared to other agencies, as 90 percent of the budget for the Units 

is salaries. This issue first surfaced in the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget, which 

was $123,000 less than the fiscal year 2001 budget, leaving the Units $400,000 

short of covering the high proportion of personnel costs. We are thankful that the 

fiscal year 2003 enacted budget for the Units was $14.9 million, including $623,000 

to cover uncontrollable costs, and $400,000 for the new Nebraska Cooperative Research Unit. However, the $400,000 uncontrollable shortfall from fiscal year 2002 

still remains. The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Units is 

$14.139 million, an $854,000 decrease from fiscal year 2003. This means there 

would be no funding for the new Nebraska Cooperative Research Unit to operate 

in 2004, and there would be a $600,000 shortfall in uncontrollable costs, resulting 

in a net uncontrollable cost shortfall for three consecutive years. 

To maintain full funding and staffing levels for the Cooperative Research Units, NAUFWP recommends that Congress increase the fiscal year 2004 budget to $16 

million. This would include $400,000 to maintain the new Nebraska Unit that Congress established in fiscal year 2003, $600,000 to cover uncontrollable costs in fiscal 

year 2004, plus sufficient funds to address the uncontrollable cost backlog from fiscal year 2002. 

There is a great deal of interest from the Unit cooperators to expand the Cooperative Research Unit program. Currently, three states have fisheries units only and 

12 states have neither fisheries nor wildlife units. Most states have expressed an 

interest in entering into a partnership between BRD, a State University, and the 

state fish and wildlife agency to bring one or both Cooperative Research Units to 

their state. NAUFWP is pleased that the fiscal year 2003 appropriations included 

language directing BRD ‘‘to develop a priority system for expanding the current program.’’ NAUFWP looks forward to participating in the long-term strategic planning 

process for the Units, and we urge Congress to approve budget requests in subsequent years based on this undertaking. The well-established record of accomplishment of the Research Units, a partnership of universities, state agencies, federal 

agencies, and non-governmental organizations, illustrates the success of their work 

to conserve fish and wildlife resources and habitats, and to train young professionals 

in the field. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NAUFWP recommends $2.225 million in support of the Cooperative Ecosystem 

Study Units (CESU) program. This amount would provide $125,000 to each host 

university, which provides research, technical assistance, and education, and 

$125,000 for the national office to partner with other agencies to support conservation and information sharing through websites and other technologies. This funding 

could be placed within the National Park Service under external programs on behalf 

of all the federal agencies involved with the CESU program. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request provides $252 million for 

Forest and Rangeland Research, essentially level with the fiscal year 2002 budget, 

including over $11 million for new research initiatives related to invasive species, 

the Healthy Forests Initiative, and Sudden Oak Death disease. The wildlife, fish, 

and watershed research budget request is $54 million, about $2 million less than 

was appropriated in 2003. NAUFWP recommends an additional $2 million for Forest Service Research, to be allocated to Wildlife, Fish, Watershed, and Air Research, 

and recommends that current activities in the Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air Research segment of the budget can be maintained. 

NAUFWP is concerned about the essentially level funding of $134.8 million for 

the Wildlife and Threatened & Endangered (T&E) Species programs in fiscal year 

2004. NAUFWP recommends that Congress appropriate $149 million for the Wildlife, Fish and Threatened & Endangered Species program in fiscal year 2004. This 

will help ensure that each National Forest has a base infrastructure of personnel 

to administer viable Wildlife Biology, Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species, Botany and other natural resource programs, and provide base level 

funding for Forest and District biologists to implement proactive management, monitoring, and research projects. 
195

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages 264 million acres (48 percent) 

of the nation’s public lands, making it the largest natural resource management 

agency in terms of acres managed. These lands provide critical habitat for fish and 

wildlife and recreational opportunities for millions of visitors. The Wildlife and Fisheries, and Threatened and Endangered Species programs of BLM help ensure sound 

management and protection of a diversity of wildlife, fish and habitats, while providing for recreational and commercial uses of the land. While the Administration 

has proposed slight increases in the fiscal year 2004 budgets of these programs, they 

still will be running at minimal funding and staffing levels. NAUFWP recommends 

that Congress appropriate an additional $10 million over the President’s request for 

Wildlife and Fisheries Management, and an additional $5 million over the President’s request for the Threatened and Endangered Species program. The Administration’s request for BLM also includes $500,000 for monitoring the 

cumulative impacts of oil and gas development on natural resources such as wildlife. 

We believe that if energy production on public lands is accelerated, then BLM must 

have the funds necessary to carry out not only monitoring and evaluation, but also 

eventual mitigation of any impacts to wildlife and fish that are identified from energy development. NAUFWP recommends that additional funds be dedicated to 

mitigating the impacts of energy development on wildlife and fish, particularly species-at-risk, and recommends that the fiscal resources to conduct this work be allocated within the appropriate program area budget where biological and cultural resource expertise exists, as opposed to allocating this funding to the oil and gas account. 

In addition, with increased emphasis on energy development, we expect an increased demand and need for fish and wildlife expertise. Already, approximately 30 

percent of existing wildlife and fisheries staff time is being directed at energy-related functions. NAUFWP supports hiring additional fish and wildlife staff to address these critical program areas in the context of addressing the Nation’s energy 

policy, but recommends these positions be directly funded from the energy account, 

rather than extracted from the existing base Wildlife and Fisheries Management or 

Threatened and Endangered Species Program budgets. 

Thank you for considering the views of universities with fisheries and wildlife programs. We look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure adequate 

funding for wildlife conservation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TEAMING WITH WILDLIFE STEERING COMMITTEE

On behalf of the Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee, we request your support for the State Wildlife Grants program in fiscal year 2004 Interior and Related 

Agencies Appropriations. Teaming with Wildlife is a broad coalition of more than 

3,000 groups who have united to enhance America’s wildlife resources. We are dedicated to achieving increased federal funding for state-level fish and wildlife conservation, education, and recreation, to ensure a bright future for all fish and wildlife and the habitat on which they depend. We strongly urge you to appropriate 

$125 million for State Wildlife Grants under the Land, Conservation, Preservation, 

and Infrastructure Improvement Fund (LCPII) in fiscal year 2004. 

State Wildlife Grants provide essential resources to state agencies to conserve 

fish, wildlife, and habitat, and to prevent further declines in at-risk fish and wildlife 

populations. More than 1,000 species are imperiled, or listed as federally threatened 

or endangered, with many more under consideration for listing. While we understand that Congress must make difficult programmatic decisions during this time 

of fiscal constraints, it is critical to recognize that State Wildlife Grants ultimately 

save federal taxpayer dollars. Past experience shows that efforts to restore imperiled 

wildlife are difficult and costly. State Wildlife Grants enable states to be proactive 

and avert such conservation catastrophes, concurrently saving wildlife and taxpayer 

dollars, and improving our quality of life by conserving wildlife for the benefit of 

millions of Americans. 

Within the first two years of the State Wildlife Grants program, state agencies 

initiated a number of important wildlife conservation measures. However, the Administration’s request of $60 million for State Wildlife Grants in fiscal year 2004 

is a substantial reduction (29 percent) from the $85 million enacted in fiscal year 

2002. This will significantly curtail the effectiveness of many state wildlife diversity 

programs that are in their infancy and require consistent, adequate federal appropriations to realize their objectives. The proposed cut for SWG in fiscal year 2004 

also will jeopardize the States’ ability to craft and implement the Comprehensive 

Wildlife Conservation Plan required by Congress. The development of these plans 
196

is underway in many states, in anticipation of consistent funding for implementation. If the commitment to this planning is reduced, the focus of spending likely will 

shift toward meeting short-term needs, instead of being channeled toward long-term 

conservation through comprehensive conservation, education and recreation programs. 

Indeed, the monies acquired for State Wildlife Grants through the annual appropriations process offer only short-term support for fish and wildlife conservation. For 

this reason, Teaming with Wildlife remains committed to securing the reliable, longterm nature and intent of Title III of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act 

(CARA). Title III of CARA would have provided $350 million per year for 15 years 

to prevent species from becoming endangered, to enhance outdoor recreational experiences, and to foster responsible fish and wildlife stewardship through conservation 

education. We respectfully urge you to address the continuing shortfalls in state 

wildlife program funding with a long-term and comprehensive approach by supporting the passage of dependable funding. We pledge to assist in implementing 

such a program. 

We understand the many pressing needs of the nation at this time, but we stress 

that a nation strong in its international role must be strong in its support for and 

conservation of its natural resources, including fish and wildlife. We need and sincerely appreciate your help with annual funding, and are hopeful that we can work 

together to bring dependability to these funds, which will be necessary to achieve 

long-term fish and wildlife conservation objectives for all citizens. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEBRASKA GAME & PARKS COMMISSION

The Nebraska Game & Parks Commission is the agency responsible for stewardship of Nebraska’s wildlife resources in the best long-term interest of Nebraskan’s 

and those resources. The Commission is charged with administration of the State 

Wildlife Grants program. The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission strongly supports an appropriation of $125 million for the State Wildlife Grants Program (administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) in fiscal year 2004. 

For more than 50 years, the highly successful Federal Aid to Fish & Wildlife Restoration program (Pittman Robertson Act) has enabled state wildlife agencies to 

meet their obligation to restore and conserve game species. The recovery of wild turkey, deer, and waterfowl populations is nothing short of miraculous. In addition to 

game conservation, the Federal Aid program has indirectly conserved habitat for 

hundreds of nongame species. 

Nevertheless, Nebraska faces the immense challenge of conserving more than 500 

nongame species considered rare or declining. During the past three years the State 

Wildlife Grants program has been instrumental in helping the Commission and its 

many partners begin implementing conservation strategies aimed at stemming population declines of nongame fish and wildlife. The Commission fully embraces the 

concept behind the State Wildlife Grants program—Use proactive conservation 

strategies now, to reduce the likelihood for endangered species listings in the future. 

In 2002, the Commission used a competitive grant program to disburse State 

Wildlife Grants funds. The agency received more than eight times the request for 

funds than was available. We expect the demand for these funds to increase substantially in the next few years. As a result of this competitive grant program, the 

Commission has built new and innovative partnerships with more than a dozen conservation organizations and universities leveraging more than $1 million in state 

and private conservation funds. 

Without the State Wildlife Grants program, Nebraska will likely be faced with the 

regulatory requirement to add more species to the state endangered species list in 

the future. This outcome is exceedingly expensive, controversial, and risky to imperiled species. We prefer a more proactive approach such as that offered through the 

State Wildlife Grants Program. 

The Commission is extremely appreciative of your committee’s support of the 

State Wildlife Grants program in fiscal years 2002 & 2003. We encourage you to 

give thoughtful consideration for this program in the 2004 budget. Thank you for 

your time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OREGON WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS

REQUEST

The Oregon Water Resources Congress is requesting $25 million for the full funding in fiscal year 2004 for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Restoration Irri-
197

gation Mitigation program as authorized in the Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) in November 2000 as Public Law 106–502 (H.R. 1444). The Administration has not request any funding in the fiscal year 2004 Budget submission 

for this program. 

FRIMA created a new federal partnership fish screening and passage program in 

the Pacific Ocean drainage areas of Idaho, Oregon, Washington and western Montana, administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service and partnered through state 

fishery agencies. 

The original legislation was supported and requested by the Pacific Northwest 

Partnership, a coalition of local governmental entities in the four Northwest states. 

As one of the members of that coalition, we appreciate your consideration of this 

request. 

NEED

Our association has represented irrigation districts in Oregon since 1912. About 

half of those districts are affiliated with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The remainder of the districts were not developed under the Reclamation program. There 

are over 200 irrigation districts in Oregon that provide water supplies to over one 

million acres of cropland in Oregon. Almost all of these districts are affected by either state or federal Endangered Species Act listings of Salmon and Steelhead, Bull 

Trout or other sensitive, threatened or endangered species. 

Fish passage and fishscreen needs have become critical to fishery protection: 

—to keep protected fish species out of water canals and delivery systems; 

—to allow fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and facility structures; and 

—to eliminate water quality risks to fish species. 

Oregon irrigation districts anticipate no less than $500 million in funding will be 

required to develop fish passage and fishscreening needs. Limited cost-share funds 

are available from the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) program in 

Oregon, but primarily the cost share for passage and screening needs will be provided by the districts and their water users. Many districts already have screening 

facilities in place, but requirements for screening have been changed to meet federal 

agency requirements of the NOAA Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Life 

Service, driven by implementation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) so 

that existing facilities must be upgraded at significant cost. 

BACKGROUND OF PUBLIC LAW 106–502

FRIMA was enacted November 2000, creating a voluntary cost-share fish screen 

construction program for water withdrawal projects in Idaho, Oregon, Washington 

and western Montana. The Fish and Wildlife Service is to implement this program 

through the fishery agencies in the four states. The funding is to go to local governments for construction of facilities. Irrigation districts (local governments), can access the funding; individual irrigators can access funding through their local Soil 

and Water Conservation District. (SWCD districts are local governments affiliated 

with the Natural Resources Conservation Service.) 

FUNDING

The legislation calls for $25 million annually, to be divided among the four states, 

from 2001 forward. The Service has never included funding in its budget requests 

since passage of the legislation. Congress provided the first funding in 2001 through 

a write-in of $4 million to be shared among the four states. The agency did not get 

the program up and running until late 2002, so the first moneys were distributed 

then. A 2003 budget write-in resulted in a $470,000 allocation to Oregon ($1.8 million total for the 4 states) which has not yet been disbursed. 

FUNDING HISTORY

2000—Congressional authorization for $25 million per year 

2001—Congressional write-in of $4 million as no agency budget line 

2002—No budget; agency did not disburse 2001 money until late 2002 

2003—Congressional write-in of $1.2 million as no agency budget line 

2004—No agency budget line 

For the 4 years, 2001–2004: 

—Congress—Authorized $100 million 

—CBO—Anticipated $70 million 

—Service—Budgeted $0 

—Congress—Wrote in $5.8 million (2002 & 2003 total combined) 
198

In 2000, in the report accompanying the legislation, the Congressional Budget Of- fice (CBO) estimated outlays of $8 million for fiscal year 2001; $15 million in fiscal 

year 2002; $22 million in fiscal year 2003 and $25 million in fiscal year 2004 and 

years forward. While the CBO estimate would have provided $70 million between 

2001 and 2004, the actual appropriation was only $5.8 million (8 percent) during 

that same time period and all of the money was a write-in. 

Funding funneled through the Service to state fishery agencies is distributed on 

the basis of an application and approval process that is based on a ranking system 

implemented uniformly among the states, including the following factors: 

—fish restoration benefits 

—cost effectiveness 

—feasibility of planned structure 

Each state is allocated 25 percent of the annual program funding. Agency administrative costs cannot exceed 6 percent of the funding. 

PROJECT BENEFITS

The project must provide improved fish passage or fish protection at water diversion structures and must benefit fish species native to and present in the area, including those listed on state or federal endangered species or conservation lists. The 

project must meet applicable state and federal requirements for project construction 

and operation. Projects will increase the survival of many native fish species in a 

relatively short period of time. Compared to other recovery strategies, the risks 

posed by these activities are low and the assurance of success in increasing numbers 

of fish is high. Dislocation of existing social and economic activities is minor. Screening and passage can make a very substantial contribution utilizing existing implementation mechanisms and methods well accepted by landowners and rural communities. 

COST SHARE

The federal cost-share is 65 percent. The applicant’s cost-share is 35 percent plus 

the on-going maintenance and support of the structure for passage or screening purposes. Applicants operate the projects and the state agencies monitor and review the 

projects. 

For more information, see the Services’ Fishery Resources website for the Pacific 

Region at http://pacific.fws.gov/Fisheries/Fish%20Passage-Screening 

%20Program.htm. 

This program is headquartered in the Portland, Oregon regional office of the Service. 

OREGON’S PROJECT BENEFITS

Of the $4 million provided to the program in 2001 for the 4 states, Oregon re- ceived $1 million for projects: 

Santiam Water Control District Project.—Fishscreen project on a large 1050 cfs 

multi-purpose water diversion project on the Santiam River (Willamette Basin) near 

Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the Santiam Water Control District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marion Soil and Water Conservation District, and the 

City of Stayton. Approved FRIMA funding of $400,000 leverages a $1,200,000 

project. Species benefited include winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, 

and cutthroat trout. 

South Fork Little Butte Creek.—Fishscreen and fish passage project on a 65 cfs 

irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin near Medford, Oregon. Partners 

are the Medford Irrigation District and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Approved FRIMA funding is $372,000 and leverages a $580,000 total project cost. 

Species benefited include listed summer and winter steelhead, coho salmon, and cutthroat trout. 

Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project.—Fishscreen project on a 60 cfs irrigation 

water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath Falls, Oregon. Partners 

are the Wocus Drainage District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and JeldWen Ranches. Approved FRIMA funding of $44,727 leveraged a total project cost of 

$149,000. Species benefited include listed red-band trout and short-nosed sucker. 

Lakeshore Gardens Project.—Fishscreen project on a 2 cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath Falls, Oregon. Partners are the 

Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Approved FRIMA funding is $5,691, leveraging a total project cost of $18,970. Species benefited include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost River sucker. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Inventory Project.—An inventory project 

to be conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify FRIMA-eligi-
199

ble passage and screening projects within the Rogue and Klamath basins of southwestern Oregon. Approved FRIMA funding is $76,000. Estimated total project cost 

is $125,000. 

(See total projects list, Pacific Region States at http://www.r1.fws.gov/Fisheries/

Fish%20Passage-Screening%20Projects.htm.)

TOTAL OREGON PROJECT FUNDING 

[In millions of dollars] 

5 Projects: 

FRIMA funds .................................................................................................................................................. 0.9 

Applicant funds ............................................................................................................................................. 1.2

Total Project .............................................................................................................................................. 2.1 

WHY FUND NOW?

Dollar-for-dollar, providing screening and fish passage at diversions is one of the 

most cost-effective use of restoration dollars, creating fishery protection at low cost, 

with low risk and significant benefits. That is why it is important that this program 

be funded now. We urge the full authorized funding for fiscal year 2004 and urge 

Congress’ oversight in encouraging the Service to budget for this successful program 

in the future. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the hearing record. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TERN AND PLOVER CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

The Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership (Partnership) was initiated in 

1999 to protect and manage endangered least terns (Sterna antillarum athalassos) 

and threatened piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) that nest in Nebraska on river 

sand bars and on gravel mine spoil piles. Birds that nest at these mines are vulnerable to predation and potential conflicts with mining operations. The Partnership 

was formed to protect these and other river birds in a way that reduced conflicts 

with private industry and that educated and involved local communities. To further 

these goals an ‘‘Adopt-a-Colony’’ program was initiated in 2000 to help with project 

activities and to engage local community members in endangered species management and protection issues. 

The Partnership is run solely by the means of grant funds and is partially funded 

by the State Wildlife Grant program, being recommended for a $45,000 grant in 

2003. The program received a Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program 

GRANT for $75,000 in 2002. The Nebraska Environmental Trust and The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service also partially fund the Partnership. 

These grants have helped with needed supplies and have allowed us to meet the 

critical need of employing two seasonal technicians to assist with monitoring and 

protection efforts during each nesting season. Technicians are essential to the continuing success of the Partnership. Without efforts from technicians it would be impossible to monitor colonies on a regular basis, erect and maintain several protective 

electric fences, and successfully mitigate potential conflicts at sand mines. Technicians also help foster high quality working relationships with sand and gravel personnel and volunteers. Moreover, the grants have helped provide essential supplies 

such as protective fencing, field signs, educational materials, and video and GPS 

equipment. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION

The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the organization created in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin 

to serve as a forum for coordinating the five states’ river-related programs and policies and for collaborating with federal agencies on regional water resource issues. 

As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has important responsibilities in the Upper 

Mississippi River Basin, including management of federal refuge lands and coordi-
200

nation with other federal, state, and local agencies on river-related ecological issues. 

The UMRBA strongly supports funding necessary to enable the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to fulfill its responsibilities in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. 

Refuges and Wildlife.—The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers over 

250,000 acres of land and water scattered along the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers 

from the most northerly unit near Wabasha, Minnesota to the most southerly unit 

near Gape Girardeau, Missouri. This includes the Upper Mississippi River National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge (NWFR), Mark Twain NWR Complex, and Illinois River 

NWFR Complex. The existence of this extensive national refuge system is, in part, 

the reason that, in 1986, Congress designated the Upper Mississippi River System 

as a ‘‘nationally significant ecosystem and a nationally significant commercial navigation system.’’

The UMRBA strongly supports the proposed increase for Refuge Operations and 

Maintenance in the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget. In fiscal year 2003, funding 

for the three refuges along the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers totaled $13.4 

million, approximately 43 percent of which was carryover for special flood-related 

repair needs. Yet there continues to be a routine maintenance backlog and a need 

for additional personnel to address law enforcement, biological needs, floodplain forest management, technical assistance to private landowners, environmental education, and other refuge management needs. In particular, the refuges along the 

Upper Mississippi River System have responsibility for the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) of projects that the Corps of Engineers constructs on those refuges, 

under the authority of the Environmental Management Program (EMP). Currently, 

those annual O&M costs are estimated to be $360,000, but will likely increase within 10 years to more than $560,000. Fully funding the O&M of EMP projects is vital 

to ensuring that these habitat restoration and enhancement projects are fully operational and provide lasting environmental and public use benefits. 

In order to properly care for the lands already in the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for acquisition of new lands 

is reduced by more than half. Despite this dramatic cut, the fiscal year 2004 budget 

includes $2 million to acquire lands for three refuges along the Upper Mississippi 

River. Included are $1 million for acquisition of 924 acres for the Great River NWR 

and $500,000 for acquisition of 400 acres for the Middle Mississippi River NWR. 

Both of these refuges are part of the Mark Twain NWR Complex for which 27,000 

acres remain to be acquired. In addition, the fiscal year 2004 budget includes 

$500,000 for acquisition of 380 acres for the Upper Mississippi River NWFR Complex, which has outstanding unmet acquisition needs of over 35,000 acres. The 

UMRBA supports the fiscal year 2004 budget request for refuge land acquisition 

and is pleased that the refuges in this region are recognized as a high priority, even 

in tight budget times. 

Ecological Services.—Funding from the Ecological Services account supports the 

field offices in Rock Island (IL), the Twin Cities (MN), and Marion (IL), which provide most of the ecological services work on the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) and 

tributaries. This includes work on threatened and endangered species, environmental contaminants, and habitat conservation. In fiscal year 2003, work being 

done by these Ecological Services field offices related to the Upper Mississippi River 

is estimated to be $375,000. The UMRBA supports this base funding for Ecological 

Services offices on the UMR and thus recommends that, at a minimum, Ecological 

Services fiscal year 2004 funding be increased from the President’s recommended 

level, to at least match the fiscal year 2003 appropriation. 

Fisheries.—Most of the Service’s fish management on the Upper Mississippi River 

is conducted out of the La Crosse (WI), Columbia (MO), and Carterville (IL) Fisheries Resource Offices, which conduct habitat restoration and assessments of 

paddlefish, pallid and shovelnose sturgeon, and freshwater mussels. The UMRBA 

supports the important work done by these offices and thus supports the funding 

proposed in the President’s budget for the Fisheries account in fiscal year 2004. In 

particular, of the $1 million increase proposed for work on aquatic nuisance species 

in fiscal year 2004, $250,000 is proposed for efforts in this basin related to Asian 

carp. 

The UMRBA is particularly pleased that the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget 

recognizes the needs related to hatchery operations and maintenance, by proposing 

an increase of $8 million in the hatcheries budget. The National Fish Hatchery on 

the banks of the Mississippi River at Genoa, Wisconsin has become a center of excellence in the recovery of endangered mussels. Additional funds proposed for the 

Genoa Hatchery in fiscal year 2004 would be used for production of freshwater mussels, lake sturgeon, and brook trout to meet restoration and recovery objectives. In 

particular, $370,000 is budgeted for large migratory species, such as lake and 

shovelnose sturgeon, and $55,000 is allocated for endangered mussels, such as the 
201

Higgin’s Eye and Winged Mapleleaf. Additional funds proposed for the Fish Health 

Center in La Crosse, Wisconsin would be used for health diagnostics for lake sturgeon and lake trout and would enhance the Wild Fish Health Survey on the Upper 

Mississippi River. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

In contrast to the deep cuts proposed for the U.S. Geological Survey over the past 

two years, the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget signals strong support for the 

science mission of the USGS. Yet while the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 request for water and for biological research reflects an increase over its prior years’ 

requests, it is, in fact, slightly lower than the fiscal year 2003 amounts recently appropriated by Congress. It is therefore important that Congress actually increase 

funding above the President’s request just to maintain stable funding for these critical science programs. 

The states of the Upper Mississippi River Basin are concerned that the USGS’ 

ability to provide timely and unbiased scientific information about complex natural 

systems not be compromised. There are several specific research and monitoring 

programs in the Water Resources and Biological Research programs that are of particular interest to the UMRBA. 

Water Resources Investigations.—The UMRBA strongly supports increased funding for the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP). The stream gaging 

network is essential to protecting public health and safety by forecasting floods and 

droughts, managing the nation’s navigation system, and monitoring water quality. 

There are currently 675 stream gages operated by USGS in the five UMRBA states. 

Over recent years, 80 gages have become inactive in the five states, many as a result of funding cutbacks. The loss of gages means the loss of the historical record 

that is needed for managing our nation’s water resources. The UMRBA shares the 

commitment of water resource managers across the nation to the long-term stability 

and security of the nation’s stream gaging program. Toward that end, UMRBA joins 

other organizations, such as the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP), in urging Congress to increase the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 proposed budget of 

$14.4 million for NSIP by $2 million. 

The UMRBA also strongly supports funding for the Federal/State Cooperative 

Water Program. The Coop Program is an essential tool in meeting state and local 

science needs, including both interpretive studies and stream gaging. Originally, the 

match between nonfederal cooperators and the USGS was 50–50. Over time, increased requests by cooperators for USGS services, coupled with stagnant federal 

funding, has altered that proportion. In 2002, cooperators generally matched every 

$1.00 in federal funds with $1.65, demonstrating the value they place on the program. In 2002, there were 182 nonfederal cooperative projects in the five UMRBA 

states, an increase of over five percent in just two years. 

In contrast to last year’s proposal to eliminate USGS’ Toxic Substances Hydrology 

program, the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget proposes $11 million for this important research. The Toxics Program, which conducts research on the behavior of toxic 

substances in the nation’s hydrologic environments, is particularly important to the 

states of the Upper Midwest. Under this program, USGS has been studying the occurrence, transport, and fate of agricultural chemicals in a 12-state area in the 

Upper Midwest. This research effort, called the ‘‘Midcontinent Agricultural Chemical Research Project,’’ is helping to identify factors that affect dispersal of agricultural chemicals in surface and ground waters and evaluating the resulting effects 

in small streams and large rivers. The goal is to provide the general scientific basis 

needed to develop agricultural management practices that protect the quality of this 

region’s water resources. Through its Toxics Program, USGS is also studying questions associated with hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, including the loads and sources 

of nutrients from the Mississippi River basin. Given the important work underway 

in the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, UMRBA urges Congress to provide $13.5 million, at a minimum, commensurate with the fiscal year 2003 level of 

funding. 

The UMRBA continues to support funding for the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA), which is slated to be at $64 million under the President’s fiscal 

year 2004 budget. NAWQA is designed to answer basic questions about the status 

and trends in the quality of our nation’s ground and surface waters, assessing 42 

major river basins and aquifers across the nation on a rotating basis every 3–4 

years. The Upper Mississippi River Basin includes four NAWQA study units (Upper 

Mississippi, Eastern Iowa, Lower Illinois, and Upper Illinois). The first 3 of these 

are scheduled for assessment in fiscal year 2004. 
202

Biological Research.—The President’s budget request for USGS Biological Re- search is $168.9 million, reflecting an increase over the fiscal year 2003 request, but 

a decrease from the fiscal year 2003 appropriation of $170.9 million. The UMRBA 

recommends that, at a minimum, Biological Research be funded at the fiscal year 

2003 level. Of particular interest to UMRBA is funding for invasive species research, including ballast water research and development of a prototype model for 

a national early detection network for invasive species. Also of interest is research 

into amphibian declines and malformations that have been occurring in recent 

years. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is submitting its comments on the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) proposed budget for fiscal 2004. WMI is a scientific, educational non-profit organization that is staffed by professional wildlife biologists and is committed to the sustainable management of wildlife populations and 

habitats throughout North America. For 63-years we have worked closely with the 

FWS to identify wildlife conservation needs and resource management solutions. 

Our following comments include recommendations for the following spending increases over the Administration’s FWS requests: $65 million for State and Tribal 

Wildlife Grants; $5 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; 

$1.2 million for Migratory Bird Management; $2 million for Neotropical Migratory 

Bird Conservation; and $10 million for controlling invasive species. It also includes 

a $24.9 million request for traditional state grants under the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund. During this time of war, we greatly appreciate the Administration’s $9 million spending increase over the fiscal 2002 spending level. The Administration’s $1.3 billion request recognizes the significant contributions of several partnership oriented 

programs and will help the FWS leverage significant support among private organizations and individuals when addressing critical issues confronting migratory birds, 

declining species and a host of other game and nongame animals. Specifically, we 

welcome the Administration’s request for the following programs and urge your subcommittee to support these programs throughout the appropriations process: 1. Landowner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship Grants ($50 million); 

2. Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program ($38.4 million, of which $9.1 million 

is for habitat restoration projects); 3. Joint Ventures under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan ($10.3 

million); 4. Refuge Challenge Cost Share Fund ($3 million); 

5. Replacement of bird survey aircraft ($1 million); 

6. Chronic Wasting Disease surveillance and control on National Wildlife Refuges 

($500,000 although spending increases should be considered in future years); and 

7. Updating database for mourning doves ($250,000). 

WMI also supports the Administration’s $25.5 million increase for the National 

Wildlife Refuge System’s operations and maintenance account (total request is $402 

million). Under the fiscal 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, that account received 

the largest increase any natural resources program had ever received in a single 

year ($48.4 million). These consecutive increases will greatly improve the Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s ability to reduce its operations and maintenance backlog. However, according to the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, the refuge system needs $700 million annually to expand its support staff, to oversee maintenance 

projects and to conduct daily operational work on refuges. To the degree that current circumnstances allow, we ask that your subcommittee narrow the gap between 

the Administration’s $402 million request and the refuge system’s $700 million 

need. 

The Institute remains concerned about the lack of adequate funding for the State 

and Tribal Wildlife Grants program, North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, 

Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, Migratory Bird Management, land acquisition program, and invasive species control/eradication. Please accommodate the following comments and spending recommendations to the best of your ability. 

STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

We are very concerned that the Administration has requested only $60 million for 

the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program for the second consecutive year. This 

request represents a 30 percent reduction from the fiscal 2002 amount of $85 million and significantly limits the ability of State and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies 

to complete their Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans and to implement on-
203

the-ground projects that benefit game and nongame species. These agencies need a 

stable or growing source of funds to meet long-term planning objectives, and WMI 

is committed to locating a dependable source of funding that will provide states and 

Tribes with $350 million every year to fulfill their unique conservation, recreation 

and education needs. In pursuit of that $350 million per year goal, WMI asks that 

your subcommittee appropriate $125 million to the grant program in fiscal 2004. 

NORTH AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION FUND

WMI welcomes the Administration’s request of $50 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, but according to the reauthorizing language for 

North American Wetlands Conservation Act, this fund is to receive $55 million in 

fiscal 2004. Since 1989, the FWS has used this fund to collaborate with more than 

2,000 partners and to conduct at least 1,114 enhancement projects for wetlands and 

associated upland habitat in 48 states, U.S. Virgin Islands, 13 Canadian provinces, 

and 24 Mexican states. Moreover, every federal dollar in this fund leverages $2.88 

from the Fish and Wildlife Service’s state and private partners. For these reasons, 

we recommend that your subcommittee appropriate the authorized amount of $55 

million to this fund. 

COOPERATIVE ENDANGERED SPECIES FUND

Through the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, state fish and wildlife agencies receive necessary financial assistance to implement habitat conservation and 

population recovery efforts for imperiled species. However, the Administration’s 

$86.6 million request for this fund includes only $7.5 million for the traditional Section 6 state grants program. We encourage your committee to support the Section 

6 grant program at $24.9 million so that 19 western states can participate in 

proactive, multi-state partnerships through efforts, such as State Conservation 

Agreements, Safe Harbor Agreements and Candidate Conservation Agreements. 

One specific project that requires additional resources is the Black-tailed Prairie 

Dog Conservation Agreement. This 4-year-old partnership involves 11 western 

states and each state is developing its own management plan to address prairie dog 

issues at the state and local level. However, the partnership needs $7.4 million in 

fiscal 2004 so that each state can finalize its management plan and to let all partners establish an incentives program for private landowners. The High Plains Partnership is another effort that is proactively addressing the population declines of 

multiple animals dependant upon short and mixed grasslands (e.g., sage grouse, 

Cassin’s sparrow and prairie chickens). At least $10 million is needed to insure that 

the Federal, State and private partners can restore grasslands and associated wildlife species throughout the Great Plains and can enhance the productivity of private 

land operations throughout the region. 

MIGRATORY BIRD MANAGEMENT

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is an international effort between Canada, the United States, and Mexico to deliver bird conservation 

through regionally based, biologically driven, landscape-oriented partnerships. To 

date, there has been no authorization to provide the necessary staff to coordinate 

the program within the United States. Needed are a National Coordinator, a Database Manager, and 6 Regional All-bird Coordinators (Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, Alaska, Southwest, Northwest). We believe these positions should be funded 

through the Service’s Migratory Bird Management Division, but we recommend the 

FWS director be authorized to enter into contracts with State wildlife agencies or 

non-governmental organizations to fill these important positions. We recommend an 

increase of $1.2 million in the Administration(s budget request for the Migratory 

Bird Management program to fund these 8 positions critical to NABCI. We also recommend that these positions be funded with new money opposed to shifting funds 

from other existing fish and wildlife programs. 

Also, NABCI partners met in February 2003 to identify priorities for fiscal 2004 

and beyond and recognized the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation program 

as one of its top priorities. This program is authorized for $5 million but the Administration requested only $3 million. WMI seeks your support for a $5 million appropriation to this account. 

LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM

In fiscal 2002, the FWS received $99.1 million to acquire ecologically valuable and 

sensitive lands from willing landowners. For fiscal 2004, however, the Administration requested only $40.7 million so that the FWS can invest more time and fiscal 
204

resources on presently owned lands. Although we support the Administration’s decision to improve the management of existing federal lands, we caution your subcommittee against a drastic cut in this program. Over the course of one year, opportunities to protect critically important habitat for wildlife may be lost forever, which 

in turn would further limit the Service’s ability to remove fish and wildlife from the 

threatened/endangered species list and to prevent the listing of other animals. 

INVASIVE SPECIES PROGRAM

Although the Administration has requested $2.1 million to combat the spread of 

non-native, invasive species in National Wildlife Refuges, the FWS does not have 

a comprehensive plan for controlling and eradicating invasives. Thus, WMI requests 

the appropriation of an additional $10 million so that the agency can strategically 

incorporate invasive species management activities into other conservation programs. 

In summary, we appreciate the Administration’s $9 million boost for Fish and 

Wildlife Service programs during such a difficult time for our nation. Productive 

landscapes that host a diversity of wildlife and fish offer all Americans a peaceful 

playground in which they can connect to their local environment via fishing, hunting, wildlife watching and photography and other recreational pursuits. But many 

national conservation needs remain unmet, and WMI encourages you to consider 

and act upon our above spending recommendations. 

Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we look forward to working with you 

throughout the appropriations process. If you or your staff would like to discuss our 

recommendations further, please contact me or Terry Riley, Director of Conservation, at (202) 371–1808. 

LETTER FROM THE WYOMING WATER ASSOCIATION

WYOMING WATER ASSOCIATION, 

WATER IS WYOMING’S GOLD! 

Cheyenne, WY, June 3, 2003. 

Hon. CONRAD BURNS, Chairman 

Hon. ROBERT C. BYRD, Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 

Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN BURNS AND SENATOR BYRD: The Wyoming Water Association 

sends this letter to request your support and assistance in insuring continued funding for the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the 

Upper Colorado River Basin (Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program) and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program. The objectives of the Wyoming Water Association are to promote the development, conservation, and utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of Wyoming 

people. Since 1932, the Wyoming Water Association has served the interests of Wyoming’s water users. With changing and growing demands on Wyoming’s limited 

water resources, complicated by an increasingly complex overlay of federal laws and 

regulations, management and development challenges and conflicts continue to become more numerous. The Association maintains an active role in supporting the 

State of Wyoming’s efforts to put Wyoming water to use for Wyoming’s citizens. 

The members of our Association supports the continuation of these two cooperative programs involving the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, 

Indian tribes, federal agencies and water, power and environmental interests are 

ongoing in the Upper Colorado River Basin and have as their objective recovering 

four species of endangered fish while water development proceeds in compliance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, state law, and interstate compacts. The 

Wyoming Water Association respectfully requests support and action by the Subcommittee that will provide the following: 

1. The continued allocation of $700,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds appropriated to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for fiscal year 2004 to allow FWS’s Region 6 

to meet its funding commitment to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. This is the same amount appropriated in fiscal years 2002 and 

2003 for this program. Funding will be used for FWS’ program and data management costs, estimating the abundance of fish populations, evaluating stocking and 

monitoring fish and habitat response to recovery actions. 

2. The allocation of $444,000 in appropriated base operation and maintenance 

funds (‘‘Fisheries Activity; Hatchery O&M Subactivity’’) to support the current operation of the FWS’ Ouray National Fish Hatchery in Utah for fiscal year 2004. 
205

3. The allocation of $165,000 in ‘‘recovery’’ funds for the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program to the FWS for fiscal year 2004 to meet FWS’s 

Region 2 expenses associated with program management and implementing the San 

Juan Program’s actions. 

The enactment of Public Law 106–392, as amended by Public Law 107–375, au- thorized the Federal Government to provide up to $46 Million of cost sharing for 

these two ongoing recovery programs’ remaining capital construction projects. Additional hatchery facilities to produce endangered fish for stocking, restoring floodplain habitat and fish passage, regulating and supplying instream habitat flows, installing diversion canal screens to prevent fish entrapment and controlling nonnative fish populations are key components of the capital construction efforts. The 

four participating states are contributing $17 Million and $17 Million is being contributed from revenues derived from the sale of Colorado River Storage Project 

(CRSP) hydroelectric power. Subsection 3(c) of Public Law 106–392 authorizes the 

Secretary of the Interior to accept up to $17 Million of contributed funds from Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, and to expend such contributed funds as if 

appropriated for that purpose. The Wyoming Water Association has for a number 

of years adopted a resolution supporting the appropriation of federal and state funds 

to carry out the purposes of these programs. 

The above line item funding requests for the FWS are supported by the State of 

Wyoming and each of the participating States engaged in these effective partnership 

programs. The requested federal appropriations are critically important and will be 

used in concert with other federal and non-federal cost-sharing funding. The support 

of your Subcommittee in past years is gratefully acknowledged and appreciated, and 

has been a major factor in the success of these multi-state, multi-agency programs 

in progressing towards endangered fish species recovery in the Upper Colorado and 

San Juan River Basins while necessary water use and development activities are 

occurring. We again request the Subcommittee’s assistance to ensure that the FWS 

is provided with adequate funding for these vitally important programs. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN W. SHIELDS, 

Executive Secretary. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEAR TRUST INTERNATIONAL; BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB; 

BOWHUNTING PRESERVATION ALLIANCE; BUCKMASTERS AMERICAN DEER FOUNDATION; CAMPFIRE CLUB OF AMERICA; CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN’S FOUNDATION; 

CONSERVATION FORCE; FOUNDATION FOR NORTH AMERICAN WILD SHEEP; HOUSTON

SAFARI CLUB; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES; 

IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA; MULE DEER FOUNDATION; NATIONAL RIFLE

ASSOCIATION; NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS FOUNDATION; NATIONAL TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION; POPE AND YOUNG CLUB; QUALITY DEER MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION; 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION; RUFFED GROUSE SOCIETY; SAFARI CLUB

INTERNATIONAL; SHIKAR SAFARI CLUB INTERNATIONAL; THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY; 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE; AND WHITETAILS UNLIMITED, INC. 

We urge you to include adequate funding in the fiscal year 2004 federal budget 

to fully implement the National Plan to Assist States, Federal Agencies and Tribes 

in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in Captive and Free Ranging Cervids. We 

specifically ask your subcommittee to appropriate $7.75 million for agency programs 

within Department of the Interior and, further, $20.46 million for non-matching 

state and tribal grants to be administered either through USDA-Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is always fatal for deer and elk. It has been 

found in either captive or free-ranging wildlife in 12 states and 2 Canadian provinces. Left unmanaged, this disease has the potential to devastate local deer and 

elk populations. Moreover, improper management of CWD will stimulate a major 

economic loss for state agencies and private businesses that rely on hunting and 

wildlife associated tourism for their livelihood. According to the USFWS’s 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 10.9 million 

sportsmen and women spent 153 million days hunting big game in 2001. Collectively, they spent $10.1 billion to purchase necessary equipment and to cover triprelated costs. And within Colorado, the Division of Wildlife estimated that deer and 

elk hunters generated $599 million for the state’s economy in 2001. Furthermore, 

the Division collected $44 million through deer and elk license sales, which represented 54 percent of the agency’s $81.9 million budget for 2001. 

In May 2002, the House Resources Subcommittees on Forests and Forest Health 

and Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans held a joint oversight hearing on 
206

the CWD crisis. Invited witnesses were asked to provide suggestions as to how Congress and the federal government could most effectively assist states in the fight 

against CWD. Resultantly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI) were directed to prepare a national plan to address CWD. 

A national CWD task force was quickly formed to ensure that federal and state 

agencies cooperated in the development and implementation of an effective national 

CWD strategy and program. Membership for the task force, and its associated working groups, totaled 75 professionals who were knowledgeable in wildlife health, 

wildlife management, wildlife biology and livestock health and represented a myriad 

of state and federal wildlife management and animal health agencies, as well as 

universities. 

On June 26, 2002 the task force released the National Plan to Assist States, Federal Agencies and Tribes in Managing Chronic Wasting Disease in Captive and Free 

Ranging Cervids, also known as the National CWD Plan. This plan represents the 

most current scientific knowledge on CWD, and delineates a strategy to identify the 

extent of the disease and management actions necessary to limit its spread. An Implementation Document was then developed to identify who will be responsible for 

individual projects, how these projects will help control CWD, how much money is 

necessary to implement the projects, and when each project should be completed. 

The Implementation Document, dated October 16, 2002, was provided to Bobby 

Acord, Director of APHIS, and Steve Williams, Director of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is our understanding that the document has since been provided to 

the Office of Management and Budget for review and analysis. Both documents are 

available at http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/policy.policy. 

According to the National CWD Plan, the primary federal role will be to provide 

coordination and assistance with research, surveillance, disease management, diagnostic testing, technology, communications, information dissemination, education 

and funding for state CWD programs. Federal agencies will provide tools and financial assistance to states and help develop consensus-based approaches to CWD control. 

The federal funding requirements identified in the Implementation Document total 

$108 million over a three year period. It is important to recognize that not all CWD 

funding has been or will be federal dollars. For example, it is estimated that the 

states of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wisconsin expended $3.6 million to combat CWD 

during 2002. In Colorado, a portion of that money was used to cull approximately 

450 mule deer and 200 elk, further evidence of the mounting need to protect the 

viability of wild and captive cervid populations. 

We are concerned that the collaborative science-based recommendations in the 

National CWD Plan and its associated Implementation Document have not been 

given due consideration during the development of the fiscal year 2004 budget. The 

Implementation Document recommends $13.6 million for USDA, $7.75 million for 

DOI and $20.46 million for state and tribal grants during the first year. However, 

the Administration only requested $14 million for USDA, of which only $7 million 

is for Plan activities. Moreover, DOI would receive $2.4 million under the Administration’s request, less than half of what the Implementation Document’s authors recommended, and the states would receive nothing. We believe this spending request 

is woefully inadequate to effectively implement the National CWD Plan. 

In summary, we urge you to include in the fiscal year 2004 federal budget the 

funding necessary to fully implement year one of the National CWD Plan. Both the 

DOI and the USDA Agriculture have been assisting states and tribes to the extent 

that their budgets permit; however, significant additional funding is needed to implement the actions and programs outlined in the National CWD Plan and its associated Implementation Document. Since the management of resident wildlife is the 

responsibility of the appropriate state wildlife agency, in addition to funding the 

CWD activities of both the DOI and USDA, the federal budget appropriation must 

provide funding that will be passed on to the states through a grant program that 

requires no match. The states have already spent millions of dollars on this issue 

and need federal funding assistance to continue the battle. 

Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we look forward to working with you 

on this important issue throughout the appropriations process. 
207

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AFRICAN WILDLIFE FOUNDATION, THE NATURE CON- SERVANCY, AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION, SAFARI CLUB INTER- NATIONAL, THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY, AMERICAN VETERINARY MED- ICAL ASSOCIATION, WORLD WILDLIFE FUND, INTERNATIONAL RHINO FOUNDATION, INTERNATIONAL ELEPHANT FOUNDATION, WILDAID, CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, THE FUND FOR ANIMALS, SIERRA CLUB, THE HU- MANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, NATIONAL AUDOBON SOCIETY, DIAN

FOSSEY GORILLA FUND INTERNATIONAL, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE MAN- AGEMENT INSTITUTE, JANE GOODALL INSTITUTE, INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR ANIMAL

WELFARE, AND AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY

We are writing as a coalition of conservationists, zoos, circuses, sportsmen, veterinarians, and animal protection groups to request your support of the Multinational 

Species Conservation Fund. This Fund has made an important contribution to the 

survival of wild tigers, elephants, rhinos, great apes, and neotropical migratory 

birds. Last year, Congress demonstrated its continued commitment to the Fund by 

increasing the appropriation to $4.8 million for the four mammal programs and $3 

million for migratory birds. We ask for fiscal year 2004 that you again support these 

successful programs by appropriating $2 million each for the Asian Elephant, African Elephant, and Great Apes Conservation Funds, $3 million for the combined Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund, and $5 million for the Neotropical Migratory 

Bird Conservation Fund. 

There have been significant improvements in the status of elephants and white 

rhinos in parts of southern Africa, rhinos in Nepal, and tigers in Russia as a result 

of grants from the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. The remaining 300 Sumatran rhinos and 60 Javan rhinos would not have survived without the Rhino Protection Units supported by the Fund. Black rhinos, whose numbers plummeted from 

70,000 in 1970 to 2,500 in 1993 are now recovering in many parts of Africa to a 

current total of about 3,100. These successes show that a species can survive if sufficient and reliable resources are provided for anti-poaching, habitat protection, disease control, public education, and measures to increase compatibility with humans. 

There are still many unfulfilled needs, particularly in India and Indonesia where 

burgeoning human populations have fractured habitat and isolated tiger, rhino and 

elephant populations. Great apes in the Congo Basin and in Indonesia continue to 

struggle for survival against disease, habitat reduction, and an increasingly commercialized trade in bush meat. Elephants, rhinos and tigers face challenges from 

poaching for ivory, horn, and body parts. Neotropical migratory bird populations 

that migrate from the United States to wintering grounds in the Caribbean and 

South America continue to suffer from environmental contaminants and loss of habitat. Many of the countries where these species are found cannot muster the resources to meet the needs of both people and wildlife. Continued support will be 

needed from the Fund to ensure the future of these species. 

The Multinational Species Conservation Fund has been especially effective in encouraging local and international matching contributions from governments and private organizations. The program’s $23 million in grants over the past twelve years 

has leveraged almost $100 million in additional funding, including $14 million alone 

during the first year of neotropical migratory bird grants. The Fund benefits mammals and birds that are cherished by millions of Americans who visit zoos, watch 

birds, or adopt them as symbols of athletic prowess, corporate strength or political 

power. Continued support by the United States will conserve these highly threatened species, create a positive image for America in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 

and encourage public-private partnerships throughout the world. We urge you to 

support increased appropriations for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund 

and the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2004. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS, THE SOCIETY

FOR HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY, AND THE SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: I am Jason Hall, Director of 

Government and Public Affairs for the American Association of Museums, presenting written testimony on behalf of a consortium consisting of the American Association of Museums, the Society for American Archaeology, and the Society for 

Historical Archaeology. 

As you know, Section 10 of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Public Law 101–601—‘‘NAGPRA’’) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior 

to ‘‘make grants to Indian tribes and native Hawaiian organizations for the purpose 

of assisting such tribes and organizations in the repatriation of native American cultural items’’ and to ‘‘make grants to museums for the purpose of assisting the muse-
208

ums in conducting the inventories and identification required under sections 5 and 

6.’’ While we appreciate the Congress and the President agreed in the Interior bill 

to provide funding of approximately $2.5 million for fiscal year 2003 to allow the 

statutorily-mandated repatriation process to proceed, we respectfully urge Congress 

to increase the appropriation to at least $5 million for fiscal year 2004. We present 

the following reasons in support of this request. 

As you are aware, NAGPRA is remedial legislation. Congress enacted the law in 

1990 in large part to assure that Native American remains and funerary and other 

objects retained by the federal government and museum community are returned 

under the law to appropriate tribes and organizations for reburial or other appropriate treatment. As remedial legislation, NAGPRA will not remedy the problem 

Congress sought to resolve unless adequate dollars are appropriated so that tribes 

and museums can complete the repatriation process—which is now under way but 

which necessarily proceeds slowly in many cases because of essential museum-tribe 

consultation and other factors. Repatriation is a high priority of the museum and 

tribal communities, which do not have adequate funds to do the necessary work required by NAGPRA. 

Since repatriation is the subject of federal legislation as well as regulations and 

administrative guidelines, the U.S. government has a trust responsibility to Indian 

tribes and their members in the area of repatriation. This trust responsibility imposes strict, binding fiduciary standards on the conduct of executive agencies, here 

the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior, in its treatment of 

tribes in repatriation matters. Adequate funding for tribes, museums and universities is necessary to carry out the statutory mandates of Congress. 

At the same time, it is clear that the communities and sovereign Indian tribes 

represented by the consortium have been called upon to take a much increased role 

in implementing Public Law 101–601 in the past several years, as the mandated 

summaries and inventories of museum holdings were largely completed by museums 

and sent to the tribes in mid-November, 1993, and mid-November, 1995, respectively. Activity has intensified immensely in recent years and will continue to do so 

as the number of actual repatriations continues to increase. The consortium’s testimony provides information on how the requirements of the law are creating significant costs for our communities and seeks your support for funding for the grant program authorized in the law, so that we can continue to comply with it in a timely 

and responsible way. 

Let me start by addressing in generic terms the needs of the museum community. 

In order to comply with Public Law 101–601, museums have to engage in activities 

falling into four categories: (1) preparation of inventories, in the case of human remains and associated funerary object, and written summaries, in the case of 

unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects and cultural patrimony; (2) notification 

and consultation with Native American groups and visitation by those groups to museum collections; (3) research to identify cultural affiliation of human remains and 

objects; and (4) repatriation. 

To prepare the inventories of human remains and funerary objects which were 

due by November 16, 1995, museums have needed to: physically locate every item 

within the museum’s storerooms; locate and review existing records to compile information necessary to determine whether a funerary object is ‘‘associated’’ or not, and 

to determine the cultural affiliation of the objects; catalog any remains ad objects 

that are not catalogued; document (e.g., measure and photograph) and analyze the 

human remains and funerary objects; and compile an inventory of human remains 

and funerary objects containing the information required under Public Law 101–

601, including cultural affiliation. The delay in promulgation of the final regulations, and the late start and low level of grant funding for repatriation grants to 

the tribes and museums, have slowed the process such that a significant number 

of museums were not able to prepare inventories by the November 16, 1995 deadline, despite timely and continuing good faith efforts, and had to appeal for extensions. 

With respect to unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony, museums were required to and did, prepare a written summary 

by November 16, 1993 rather than an itemized inventory of their collections. Nevertheless, many museums needed to undertake many tasks similar to those noted 

above in order to collect the required information. Throughout all of this, museums 

have needed to consult with native American tribes which might have an interest 

in the objects. The time and funds spent on consultation with Native American peoples varies according to the physical proximity of the museum to the particular 

group. 

Once the inventory and written summary are complete, the museum must identify 

the tribal representatives authorized to accept repatriable objects and formally no-
209

tify those representatives. Tribal representatives must travel to the museums to examine the objects and consult with the museum. Remains and artifacts must be 

packed and shipped to the appropriate Native American group. During this process, 

disagreements may arise as to the disposition of items covered by Public Law 101–

601, and these issues must be resolved. 

Let me turn to some specific cases. On December 6, 1995, the Senate Committee 

on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the implementation of NAGPRA. 

Final NAGPRA regulations, with some sections still incomplete, were published two 

days prior to the hearing. Two years later, the Interior Department published an 

interim rule on one of those incomplete sections, the civil penalties section. But as 

of April 2001, there have been no final regulations issued on the three remaining 

sections (future applicability, culturally unidentifiable remains, and unclaimed 

items from Federal or tribal lands.) 

Representatives from the National Park Service, the NAGPRA Review Committee, 

three affected tribes, and a witness representing both the American Association of 

Museums and an affected museum, testified about compliance with the law. NPS 

witness Katherine Stevenson noted that the NPS had made 83 NAGPRA grant 

awards totaling $4.37 million since the beginning of the program, but that over that 

time, they had received 337 grant proposal requests totaling nearly $30 million, and 

she conceded that the Interior Department’s $2.3 million request for fiscal year 1996 

did not meet the valid needs demonstrated in the grant applications from museums 

and the tribes. Since that 1995 testimony, the situation has remained much the 

same in terms of funding needs. As of April 2002, the NPS has been able to make 

351 NAGPRA grant awards totaling approximately $21.3 million since the beginning of the program, but during that time, it has received well over 770 grant proposals totaling more than $52 million, and funding has essentially been flat at $2.3 

million, and more recently $2.5 million annually. The $2.5 million appropriation 

continues to fall short of valid needs. 

The witness representing museums in 1995, William Moynihan, President of the 

Milwaukee Public Museum, testified about the effort of his museum to comply with 

the law. He noted that the ‘‘Milwaukee Public Museum will have committed well 

in excess of half a million dollars by 1997 to deal with the legislation. Existing staff 

in our Anthropology/History Section have been reallocated from their normal duties 

to NAGPRA-related activities, a large team of volunteers assembled, and trained 

student interns and work-study students hired.’’ He noted that the Museum has 

been collecting anthropological and archaeological materials for over 100 years, that 

included in the holdings are the remains of 1,500 individuals, and that the collections are not computerized. Despite these difficulties, the museum had completed 

a physical inventory of over 22,000 Native American ethnographic objects, and a 

preliminary inventory of 50,000 archaeological objects; sent summaries to 572 tribes 

and native Alaskan and Hawaiian groups; followed up with hundreds of calls to 

tribes; and taken a variety of other actions to comply with the law. 

On a broader scale, we have results from the American Association of Museums’ 

1994 repatriation survey of 500 of its member institutions, including all of its natural history museums and a selected sample of its art and history museums. The 

survey response rate was 43.6 percent. Of those responding, 76 percent of the natural history museums, 43 percent of the history museums and 23 percent of the art 

museums had Native American objects. Those respondents—a little more than 

200—alone had almost 3.5 million objects which fell into NAGPRA categories, and 

that does not include 15 responding natural history museums, including 3 large institutions, which could not give an estimate of their NAGPRA- related holdings. An 

overwhelming number of these institutions noted how lack of final regulations and 

of NAGPRA grant funding had hindered or prevented their repatriation efforts. 

Estimating aggregate costs is not possible from the survey data, given the great 

disparities in how institutions calculated their own costs. It is clear, however, that 

thousands of institutions across the country are affected to some degree by 

NAGPRA costs. 

The Native American community is also incurring major expenses in attempting 

to comply with the requirements and deadlines of NAGPRA. As you know, the repatriation process involves sacred items and, most importantly, human remains, not 

just artifacts. In this light we must approach the funding issues related to the Act. 

A 1994 repatriation survey done by the National Congress of American Indians indicated that some tribes had received hundreds of NAGPRA summaries from museums, and that the need for outside funding to hire experts to help them analyze 

these materials and subsequent NAGPRA inventory materials is virtually universal. 

From the dozens of responses to the survey, it is apparent that most tribes do not 

have the capacity to comply with the Act. For example, the Shingle Springs 

Rancheria/Miwok/Maidu tribe reported, ‘‘Our tribe has been well versed in the pur-
210

pose and intent of NAGPRA. The response from museums—the sending out of surveys to the tribes at the November 1993 deadline—has been astounding. We have 

received over 100 notices. However, we cannot respond or take advantage because 

of lack of funds.’’ This tribe estimated its financial needs at approximately $35,830. 

And at the December 1995 Senate oversight hearing, Cecil Antone of the Gila River 

Indian Community noted that the Community had received over 150 letters from 

various museums and federal agencies about the disposition of NAGPRA-related collections. The needs of the tribes vary depending on the number of responses they 

have received, their present and future ability to comply with the Act, and what, 

if any, experience their tribe has had with projects of this sort. In fact, tribal responses estimating funding needs ranged from ‘‘unknown’’ to ‘‘very much’’ to ‘‘$2 

million.’’

In October 1990, the Congressional Budget Office estimated NAGPRA implementation costs to museums of $40 million and to tribes and native Hawaiian organizations of $5–10 million over 5 years, assuming that museums and federal agencies 

hold between 100,000 and 200,000 Native American remains and that the cost to 

inventory and review each remain would be $50–150. Those estimates now appear 

to be very low in light of our experience since that time. As a result, viable tribal 

and museum request for grants continue to exceed available funds by a large margin. In addition, museums cannot repatriate to the tribes until appropriate notices 

go into the Federal Register, and there is currently a backlog of about 150 such notices at the NPS, about a year’s worth, due to lack of staff to process them. 

In closing, let me add that while the museums and tribes must have this grant 

program funded simply to comply with the requirements of NAGPRA, it is also true 

that the grant program will accomplish far more than compliance. Museums and 

tribes have discovered that the exchange of data required under NAGPRA is yielding new information that helps us all. In the process of identifying sensitive cultural 

items, museums are learning much more about their entire collections. Delegations 

of elders and religious leaders have supplied valuable new insights about many objects in the repositories they have visited, and in turn they are discovering items 

of immense interest to their own tribes, the existence of which had been unknown 

in recent generations. Few items in these categories are being sought for repatriation; it is simply that access to the collections has led to much better mutual understanding and exchange of knowledge. While the repatriation process will eventually end as the transfer of materials is completed, the long-term relationship created 

between museums and tribes will continue. 

Thus, this funding will not just support expenses mandated by law. It is also an 

excellent investment that serves the public interest now—and will continue to pay 

dividends in the future—through more accurate and respectful exhibits and education programs that are the fruits of long-term collaborations. 

Finally, we respectfully urge you to keep in mind that we are talking in large part 

about the reburial of the remains of human beings, and that under a reasonable and 

dignified standard, such repatriation and reburial should occur with all due haste. 

Certainly the United States government has acted urgently with due regard to repatriation of remains of American soldiers killed in foreign wars or missing in action. 

Native American repatriation and reburial should be treated with the same priority 

and dignity. 

The consortium appreciates this opportunity to testify on this issue. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICANS FOR NATIONAL PARKS

Americans for National Parks (ANP) is pleased to share its views regarding the 

programs in the Department of Interior’s budget that affect national park resources 

and requests that this statement be included in the hearing record for the fiscal 

year 2004 Interior and Related Agencies appropriations bill. We appreciate the opportunity to share our priorities for funding and we respectfully request that the 

Committee consider these views as the fiscal year 2004 budget is shaped. ANP requests an increase of $178 million over the current fiscal year 2003 spending levels, 

$102 million above the president’s request, for a total of $1,633,351,000 in fiscal 

year 2004 for the operation of the National Park System. 

ANP is a growing coalition of people who care deeply about these awe-inspiring 

places. Today, we have more than 325 members, including chambers of commerce, 

nonprofit organizations, private businesses, government municipalities, and tourism 

and trade associations, working together to encourage Congress and the administration to address the critical needs of the National Park System. 

At a time when our country is at war, America’s national parks provide a priceless opportunity to reconnect with our shared history and culture and awe-inspiring 
211

wilderness. From the hallowed grounds of Gettysburg National Military Park to the 

peaks of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve. From breathtaking landscapes, like the scenic badlands of Theodore Roosevelt National Park, to crown jewels like Mesa Verde National Park, Bandelier National Monument, and other sites 

that preserve and interpret our culture. All of our 388 national park sites help define us, inspire us to continue to grow as a diverse nation, and, especially during 

difficult times, offer us solace. 

Now is the time to cherish these precious places, but sadly, many are in dire 

straits. While Congress has regularly increased funding, the budget of the National 

Park Service has failed to keep pace with need, crippling the ability of dedicated 

park staff to protect native plants and wildlife, and the cultural and historic artifacts within the parks, as well as meet the needs of millions of visitors. 

Examples of the dire need can be found across the National Park System: At 

Death Valley National Park, public education activities have been reduced by a 

third. Many of Mesa Verde’s 600 archaeological sites containing prehistoric architecture have not been visited in 40 years due to inadequate staffing. These sites need 

to be assessed, documented, treated, and monitored, resulting in long-term preservation for research, interpretation and visitor education. Twenty-one Native American 

groups have a history in Yellowstone, yet only one percent of the park has been surveyed for Native American sites. Through natural erosion, land use, and vandalism, 

sites are being damaged before they can be studied. Great Smoky Mountains National Park doesn’t have sufficient staff and funding to maintain the park’s many 

historic structures, including historic log cabins and mills. White Sands National 

Monument needs additional staff to manage its museum collection, so that relics, 

such as Mogollon pottery shards, will be properly preserved. Mount Rainier National Park doesn’t even have a volcanologist or geologist on staff to monitor the 

park’s active volcano! 

Research in more than 50 parks has revealed that national parks are operating, 

on average, with only two-thirds of the needed funding-and annual shortfall of more 

than $600 million. A critical first step toward alleviating this shortfall is an increase 

of $178 million, a reasonable and manageable amount that would better enable the 

National Park Service to fulfill its mission and preserve our national parks 

unimpaired for future generations. 

The national parks inspire all who treasure the best of our nation to stand up 

as stewards for their protection. Please support a $178-million increase for our national parks. Because there’s just too much to lose. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICANS FOR OUR HERITAGE AND RECREATION

REQUEST

—Full funding of the Interior Appropriation’s Conservation Trust Fund (also 

known as the Conservation Spending Category) at its $1.56 billion level; 

—Funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund’s stateside program at no 

less than $200 million; and 

—Funding for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program at no less than 

$50 million. 

Americans for Our Heritage and Recreation is a broad and diverse organization 

representing more than 1,000 park and recreation associations, state and local elected and non-elected officials, conservation and wilderness proponents, the outdoor 

recreation and sporting goods industries, wildlife enthusiasts, smart growth champions, urban parks groups, historic preservationists, land trust leaders, the youth 

sports community, and civic groups. 

The organization works to communicate to policy makers at all levels of government the value of parks and recreation areas made possible by the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund and the need for support of these sites. AHR mobilizes this national coalition through its extensive grassroots communications network, employing 

regional and state leaders to coordinate an integrated public education campaign. 

AHR is committed to permanent full funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with an equitable allocation of funds between its federal and 

state matching grants programs. In addition, AHR supports a revived and substantially funded Urban Park and Recreation Recovery program (UPARR). We believe 

the Conservation Trust Fund, passed by Congress in 2000, is a significant shortterm commitment. Accordingly, AHR supports full funding of this program in fiscal 

year 2004 at its $1.56 billion level. 

The organization recognizes the original intent of LWCF as a long-term investment of proceeds from sales of non-renewable resources to acquire land and water 
212

within our nation’s national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and other public lands, 

and to enhance recreation opportunities at the state and community levels. That is 

why AHR supports the use of LWCF funds for these purposes but not for programs 

outside of its legislative mandate. We also ask the Senate Appropriators to follow 

the President’s lead in fiscal year 2004 by protecting the traditional priority of stateside LWCF funds for accessible public recreation enhancement. 

In asking for your leadership, we believe: 

—LWCF and UPARR are programs that return conservation and recreation funds 

to states and local communities.—LWCF has been responsible for more than 

38,000 community parks that reflect local concerns and needs. UPARR has been 

integral to a healthy and safe urban community life through funding municipal 

parks and creating urban soccer, baseball, and football fields. Collectively, these 

resources are nationally important. 

—LWCF and UPARR encourage and promote healthy lifestyles, an area of growing 

concern in our country.—Five chronic diseases—heart disease, cancers, stroke, 

chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, and diabetes—account for more than 

two-thirds of all deaths and three-fourths of the $1 trillion spent on health care 

annually. Research is clear that aggressive health promotion, especially with regard to daily physical activity, can substantially alter the epidemic brought on 

by current trends in these chronic diseases. If funded at appropriate levels, 

LWCF and UPARR can continue to be instrumental in helping local communities develop close-to-home recreation that can serve as venues for physical activity. 

—LWCF and UPARR promote smart growth and livable communities.—LWCF 

and UPARR are a means to assist intelligent, planned growth, and to curb the 

detrimental effects of sprawl by protecting lands outside the borders of the city, 

and making efficient and attractive use of open space within it. LWCF and 

UPARR empower states and municipalities to accomplish these objectives 

through leverage by partnering of federal, state, and local funds. 

—LWCF and UPARR are critical resources for providing recreation places for 

America’s kids.—LWCF has helped communities create more than 7,000 soccer 

and football fields, 6,000 baseball fields, and thousands of other recreation centers. UPARR provides recreation centers for children in the critical 3 p.m. to 

6 p.m. time frame, providing learning environments where children are tutored 

and have access to mentors. 

Parks and recreation areas funded through LWCF and UPARR are integral components of community life for millions of Americans nationwide. They provide 

venues for everything from hiking and biking, to picnicking and playing ball. They 

serve as places for people to gather, gain strength, and affirm their faith in America’s core values. 

The broad range of groups that comprise AHR evinces the enthusiastic support 

for LWCF and UPARR across the country. Fully funding the Conservation Trust 

Fund, with LWCF at no less than $200 million and UPARR at no less than $50 

million, will demonstrate to the American people that Congress recognizes the important role these programs have played in ensuring that parks and recreation centers will always be there. This appropriation, coupled with adequate funding for 

LWCF’s federal program, will advance the goal of a national system of American 

parks. The time to make this commitment is now. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN HIKING SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, American Hiking Society represents 5,000 members and the 500,000 members of our 160 affiliated organizations. 

As the national voice for America’s hikers, American Hiking Society (AHS) promotes 

and protects foot trails and the hiking experience-and is a long time partner with 

the National Park Service (NPS), USDA Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In order for Americans to enjoy the outdoors, we need protected 

open spaces and well-maintained trails and other recreation facilities. We urge you 

to support funding increases that will protect trails and recreation resources for the 

benefit of the nation. American Hiking makes the following trail and recreation 

funding recommendations for fiscal year 2004: 

National Park Service: 

—Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance program.—$15 million 

—National Trails System.—$11 million 

—Geographic Information System Network for National Trails.—$1.25 million 

USDA Forest Service: 

—Recreation Management, Heritage and Wilderness.—$320 million 
213

—Capital Improvement and Maintenance—Trails.—$100 million 

Bureau of Land Management: 

—Recreation Management.—$64 million 

Conservation Trust Fund.—$2.08 billion 

—Stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).—$200 million 

—Federal LWCF, Ice Age National Scenic Trail, National Park Service.—$4 

million 

—Federal LWCF, Appalachian National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest Service.—

$8.3 million 

—Federal LWCF, Florida National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest Service.—$5 million 

—Federal LWCF, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, USDA Forest Service.—

$5 million 

—Federal LWCF, Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, BLM.—$1 million 

—Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR).—$50 million 

TRAILS AND RECREATION FUNDING

Our public lands offer Americans outstanding outdoor recreation opportunities, especially hiking, to experience freedom and renewal while enjoying natural and cultural treasures. Hiking represents one of the fastest growing recreational activities—75 million Americans hike regularly or occasionally according to the Outdoor 

Industry Association’s Participation Study 2001. However, many recreation opportunities are at risk, have deteriorated, or been lost due to funding shortages. 

Federal policy encouraging healthy lifestyles, promoting volunteerism, and backing partnerships to protect and maintain our public lands prompt and support funding increases for trail and recreation programs across the National Park Service, 

USDA Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management. Targeted funding increases 

coupled with increased on-the-ground recreation staff, including trail and volunteer 

coordinators, is essential to providing and preserving hiking and other outdoor 

recreation opportunities nationwide. 

National Park Service.—The 17 national scenic and historic trails administered by 

the National Park Service require $11 million for natural and cultural resource 

management and protection, improving visitor services, and strengthening volunteer 

partnerships. For most of the national scenic and historic trails, barely one-half of 

their congressionally authorized length and resources are protected and available for 

public use. Most trail offices are understaffed, hindering the agencies’ ability to 

properly administer and manage these trails and work effectively with other public 

agencies and non-profit volunteer partner organizations. 

In 2002, national trail volunteer organizations contributed more than $6.8 million 

in financial resources and over 662,429 volunteer hours with an estimated labor 

value of $10.6 million to the national scenic and historic trails (Partnership for the 

National Trails System data). Of this, the volunteer hours contributed to the 17 

NPS administered trails represents approximately 11 percent of total volunteer 

hours contributed to the NPS. These volunteer contributions leverage federal funding significantly but must not be considered a substitute for appropriations. Many 

of the national scenic trails have made significant strides in trail maintenance and 

protection efforts, but much work remains for these trails to become the continuous 

footpaths that Congress intended. American Hiking thanks the subcommittee for its 

support of the National Trails System and urges you to increase funding to help 

complete and protect these national treasures. AHS endorses the specific figures 

submitted by the Partnership for the National Trails System. 

In addition, NPS requires $1.25 million to continue work on a Geographic Information System network for the national scenic and historic trails. This program, 

costing approximately $9.8 million over five years, will provide accurate information 

to assist the public, trail managers, and other stakeholders in trail protection, development, maintenance, interpretation, and resource management. The project applies 

state-of-the-art technology to better administer and protect trail resources and landscapes and facilitates interagency coordination of staff, data, and resources. 

The NPS’ Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program requires 

$15 million to help communities manage and protect their recreational and natural 

resources. Despite the program’s successes in coordinating over 200 projects annually, RTCA funding has remained relatively stagnant during the last decade and 

lagged well behind the rate of inflation. The program’s declining real budget has 

caused large cuts to staff and therefore, to projects. 

With its strong focus on partnerships, RTCA is exceptionally cost efficient and effective. In fiscal year 2002, RTCA helped develop more than 1,200 trail miles, protect more than 850 river miles, and preserve nearly 18,000 acres of open space. 
214

RTCA-assisted projects accomplish much more than conservation goals. They promote physical activity, encourage smart growth, minimize flood loss, provide opportunities for close-to-home recreation, and revitalize inner-city communities. RTCA 

has experienced a dramatic increase in requests for assistance but is only able to 

assist half of all applicants. The Administration budget includes a much needed $1.5 

million increase, but the program needs a total of $15 million to put staff closer to 

the people they serve, to replace the staff they lost in years of declining real budgets, and to better help communities meet local conservation needs. 

USDA Forest Service.—We strongly support increased funding for two major Forest Service programs-Recreation Management, Heritage, and Wilderness and Capital Improvement and Maintenance for trails. The current investment in Forest 

Service recreation falls far below the level needed to support the role recreation 

plays in the agency and economy, yet the Forest Service itself highlights the growing importance of recreation through the continued implementation of its Recreation 

Agenda released in September 2000. 

The Forest Service estimates that recreation creates over 75 percent of the Gross 

Domestic Product generated from Forest Service land, yet only about 10 percent of 

the Forest Service budget goes to recreation. The Forest Service requires increased 

funding to restore and maintain thousands of miles of trails; protect and preserve 

natural and cultural resources; upgrade inadequate and/or poorly maintained recreation facilities; reduce the maintenance backlog; augment on-the-ground recreation 

staff; and more effectively utilize and support volunteers. Increased funding is especially crucial to the Recreation Agenda goals of reducing the $298 million recreation 

maintenance backlog and placing trail and volunteer coordinators and/or recreation 

planners at each national forest and for each nationally designated area or trail. 

Just as the Administration is focused on eliminating the maintenance backlog for 

the NPS, we urge Congress to appropriate funds to address the Forest Service and 

BLM maintenance backlogs. 

Despite the agency’s increased emphasis on recreation, we are concerned that this 

conversation at the top is not translating to the ground. Very few national forests 

have even one full-time trails coordinator. Understaffing often results in volunteers 

performing essential functions instead of agency personnel. And despite the number 

of hiking and other recreation organizations that offer to volunteer to build and 

maintain trails in national forests, very few forests have a volunteer coordinator. 

Ironically, volunteer trail crews have been turned away because of the agency’s inability to provide even minimal supervision or support. In 2002, more than 90,700 

volunteers contributed three million work-hours valued at $38 million to the Forest 

Service; 70 percent of this contribution supported recreation. These efforts warrant 

an expanded commitment to trails and recreation funding, notably funding for recreation staff on the ground. 

The Forest Service must receive additional funding to manage Wilderness effectively and appropriately. With 33,000 miles of trail in FS Wilderness, and an estimated 12.7 million visits in 2001, increased funding is necessary to provide quality 

recreation experiences with minimal impact to the environment and to keep these 

places truly wild for future generations. 

Ensuring visitor safety, protecting natural resources, maintaining visitor access, 

and improving the backcountry and recreation experience require a greater investment in trails. The Forest Service trail maintenance backlog totals over $118 million. Inadequately maintained trails suffer from excessive erosion, trail widening, 

and braiding. Many trails are in such disrepair that they require re-construction. 

Increasing the trails budget is crucial to enable the agency to begin to address this 

significant recreational infrastructure need, including projects such as bridge replacement or trail relocation. 

The Forest Service administers four national scenic and historic trails and manages significant portions of 11 other national trails. Responsible administration requires the full-time attention of an inter-regional administrator for each trail and 

continual collaboration with other federal and state agencies and nonprofit partner 

organizations. Land acquisition by dedicated land teams is underway for the Florida 

and Pacific Crest Trails. New sections of the Continental Divide, Florida and Pacific 

Crest Trails must be constructed to fill in gaps in these long-distance trails. 

Bureau of Land Management.—BLM manages over 4,700 miles of national scenic, 

historic, and recreational trails as well as thousands of miles of multiple use trails. 

BLM requires increased funding to manage rapidly expanding recreational use 

while protecting natural and cultural resources, including the special areas managed under the National Landscape Conservation System. Outdoor recreation is an 

important use of these lands and management of outdoor recreation resources, facilities, and visitor use are important components of the BLM’s multiple use mission, yet the agency remains severely underfunded and understaffed. 
215

BLM requires additional funding to manage existing recreation programs; protect 

resources; upgrade planning efforts, including the engagement of local communities; 

adapt to increasing visitor demands; and to manage off-highway vehicle usage more 

effectively. Recreation facilities are inadequate or often in poor condition, and staff 

shortages place recreational, natural, and cultural resources at risk. Additional 

staffing is especially needed to meet the management demands for each of the National Monuments and National Conservation Areas. 

Conservation Trust/Land and Water Conservation Fund.—AHS strongly supports 

federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) appropriations for the Appalachian, Ice Age, Florida, and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails. Only one of the 

eight national scenic trails—the Appalachian Trail—is nearly complete; we urge you 

to turn your support toward the remaining national scenic trails and label them as 

high priority projects under the LWCF. LWCF monies for land purchases must also 

be accompanied by adequate funding for the agencies to effectively manage the acquisitions process and disburse the appropriations. We support $200 million for the 

stateside LWCF program. UPARR should be restored at the amount of $50 million, 

and the Conservation Trust Fund should be funded at its dedicated amount of $2.08 

billion in fiscal year 2004. 

Fee Demo.—AHS recognizes that the Recreational Fee Demo Program is an attempt to meet the growing needs of recreationists at a time when appropriations 

are not keeping pace with demand, yet we urge the Subcommittee to continue to 

oppose any trail and recreation appropriations offsets with Fee Demo revenues. 

American Hiking is committed to working with Congress and the agencies on the 

proper role and application of recreation entrance/user fees. 

On June 7, 2003, AHS will coordinate the eleventh National Trails Day (NTD) 

to raise public awareness and appreciation for trails. Participants will gather at 

more than 2,000 NTD events nationwide. Thank you for considering our request. 

AHS members and outdoorspeople nationwide appreciate the subcommittee’s support in the past and look forward to continued strong support. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDUBON OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, on behalf of Audubon of Florida, 

a strategic alliance of the National Audubon Society, Florida Audubon Society and 

43 chapters and 40,000 members in the State of Florida, thank you for the opportunity to express to your Committee our recommendations for fiscal year 2004 funding of specific programs and projects at the Department of the Interior related to 

the restoration of America’s Everglades. 

The Everglades ecosystem, from the Kissimmee River Valley in the north through 

Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades, Florida Bay, the Keys, and the coral reefs to the 

south, is a unique and world-renowned eco-region. The Everglades has been abused 

for more than 100 years. Its restoration is the most ambitious environmental challenge our nation has ever undertaken. Congress approved, and the State of Florida 

supports, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as a framework 

for changes to the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project. CERP, along with 

Modified Water Deliveries and C–111 projects, are needed to restore, preserve, and 

protect the South Florida ecosystem, while providing for other water-related needs 

of the region consistent with restoration goals. We urge support for the following 

funding needs for fiscal year 2004: 

LAND ACQUISITION ASSISTANCE TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA—ZERO FUNDING

The Administration has proposed to zero out this critical program that provides 

assistance to the State in purchasing lands needed for Everglades restoration at the 

worst possible time, when the State of Florida has run out of money for land acquisitions. The program was funded at $20 million in the President’s request last year 

and needs to be significantly increased, not zeroed out. Now is not the time to cut 

land acquisition assistance when over 200,000 acres needed for the Comprehensive 

Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) remain to be acquired at an estimated cost of 

approximately $2 billion and real estate prices are escalating dramatically. Restoration options are being foreclosed in South Florida as the CERP footprint is being 

developed, and the State is out of money for its land acquisition program, leaving 

crucial lands at risk. National Park Service Land Acquisition Assistance to the State 

of Florida should be funded at $20 million. 
216

SCIENCE FUNDING

We urge the Committee to fund U.S. Geological Services and NPS Everglades 

science programs at least $15 million. The National Research Council’s December, 

2002 report on Everglades science indicated that recent funding for the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI) of $4 million is inadequate. CESI funding should 

be gradually restored to its previous levels of $12 million. In addition to CESI, adequate funding should also be provided to ongoing critical Everglades studies regarding the sheet flow of water across the Everglades, water quality, the levels of mercury and other contaminants, nutrient levels, and the complex interaction of groundwater and surface water in South Florida. On-going science and research are critical 

to the successful use of adaptive assessment. Applied research that directly supports 

implementation and monitoring of project effectiveness is vital to the success of the 

CERP. 

CERP FUNDING

The Administration’s request of $9 million for CERP implementation for Fish and 

Wildlife Service and NPS in fiscal year 2004 should be increased to $10 million. The 

functions and responsibilities of the recently closed Interior South Florida office 

were transferred to the Miami Office of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration 

Task Force. We urge the Committee to provide $1 million additional funding to support these additional functions and responsibilities. 

MODIFIED WATERS DELIVERIES TO EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK PROJECT

Funding for this project, which would return critical sheetflows of water to Everglades National Park and Florida Bay, was cut by $300,000 to $13 million. The 

Modified Water Deliveries project should be funded at $15 million, $2 million above 

the Administration’s request. The budget must continue adequate funding for previously authorized programs such as this project whose performance assumptions 

have been included in the CERP. It is crucial to the successful and timely implementation of CERP that all components of the Modified Water Deliveries project be 

adequately funded and completed in 2005. This will require $15 million in fiscal 

year 2004 and an additional $15 million in fiscal year 2005. 

NO CONSTRUCTION FUNDING FOR PILOT PROJECTS

While funding for the Pilot Projects comes under the purview of the Energy and 

Water Subcommittee, we feel it is appropriate to keep the Interior Subcommittee 

apprised of the urgent need to fund these projects since so much of the CERP is 

dependent on their results. Congress authorized Everglades restoration with the understanding that there were some unanswered questions regarding the technological 

and scientific challenges facing certain aspects of Everglades restoration, and that 

the plan would have to evolve and adapt over time to answer those questions. Pilot 

projects were designed to provide the technical detail needed to resolve some of the 

uncertainties surrounding the Aquifer Storage and Recovery, Seepage Management, 

and Lake Belt storage components of the CERP. Construction funding of $2.5 million is needed to begin these pilot projects that have been delayed for several years 

due to a lack of construction funding. 

The President committed on January 9, 2002 in the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan Assurance of Project Benefits Agreement, ‘‘To effectuate this agreement, the Federal party [President of the United States] agrees [t]o include within 

the President’s budget submissions to the Congress requests for the Federal appropriations in the amount the President deems necessary to implement the Federal 

share of the Plan’s implementation[.]’’ We note that this funding was left out of the 

Administration’s budget, and ask that Congress correct this apparent oversight in 

order to implement the plan with the requisite scientific rigor. 

We greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide the Committee with our views 

on the fiscal year 2004 Interior budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT CENTRAL

CALIFORNIA OZONE STUDY (CCOS) COALITION

On behalf of the California Industry and Government Central California Ozone 

Study (CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the record in 

support of our fiscal year 2004 funding request of $1,000,000 for CCOS as part of 

a Federal match for the $9.1 million already contributed by California State and 

local agencies and the private sector. This request consists of $500,000 from the De-
217

partment of Energy (DOE), $250,000 from the National Park Service (NPS), and 

$250,000 from the Forest Service. 

Most of central California does not attain federal health-based standards for ozone 

and particulate matter. The San Joaquin Valley is developing new State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for the federal ozone and particulate matter standards in the 

2002 to 2004 timeframe. The San Francisco Bay Area has committed to update their 

ozone SIP in 2004 based on new technical data. In addition, none of these areas attain the new federal 8-hour ozone standard. SIPs for the 8-hour standard will be 

due in the 2007 timeframe—and must include an evaluation of the impact of transported air pollution on downwind areas such as the Mountain Counties. Photochemical air quality modeling will be necessary to prepare SIPs that are approvable 

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

The Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable central California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State Implementation Plans 

(SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for use nationwide. The CCOS field 

measurement program was conducted during the summer of 2000 in conjunction 

with the California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major 

study of the origin, nature, and extent of excessive levels of fine particles in central 

California. CCOS includes an ozone field study, a deposition study, data analysis, 

modeling performance evaluations, and a retrospective look at previous SIP modeling. The CCOS study area extends over central and most of northern California. 

The goal of the CCOS is to better understand the nature of the ozone problem 

across the region, providing a strong scientific foundation for preparing the next 

round of State and Federal attainment plans. The study includes six main components: 

—Developed the design of the field study 

—Conducted an intensive field monitoring study from June 1 to September 30, 

2000 

—Developing an emission inventory to support modeling 

—Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region 

—Designing and conducting a deposition field study 

—Evaluating emission control strategies for upcoming ozone attainment plans 

The CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well as private industry. These 

committees, which managed the San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study and are currently 

managing the California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately $9.1 

million for the field study. The federal government has contributed $3,730,000 to 

support some data analysis and modeling. In addition, CCOS sponsors are providing 

$2 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is seeking federal co-funding 

of an additional $6.25 million to complete the remaining data analysis and modeling 

and for a future deposition study. California is an ideal natural laboratory for studies that address these issues, given the scale and diversity of the various ground 

surfaces in the region (crops, woodlands, forests, urban and suburban areas). 

There also exists a need to address national data gaps, and California should not 

bear the entire cost of addressing these gaps. National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The 

CCOS field study took place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate 

Matter Study—previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local and private 

sector funds. Thus, CCOS was timed to enable leveraging the efforts of the particulate matter study. Some equipment and personnel served dual functions to reduce 

the net cost. From a technical standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently 

was a unique opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter and ozone 

control efforts. CCOS was cost-effective since it builds on other successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study. Federal assistance is needed to 

address these issues effectively. 

For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is seeking funding of $500,000 from the Department of Energy (DOE) Fossil Program.—The California Energy Commission is a key 

participant, having contributed $3 million. Consistent with the memorandum of understanding between the California Energy Commission and the DOE, joint participation in the CCOS will result in: 1) enhanced public interest in programs on energy research, development, and demonstration; 2) increased competitiveness and 

economic prosperity in the United States; and 3) further protection of the environment through the efficient production, distribution, and use of energy. 

The CCOS program coincides with DOE’s initiative to develop the Federal Government’s oil technology program. In fact, the oil industry in California has been 
218

working for several years with DOE to identify innovative partnerships and programs that address how changes in those sectors can cost-effectively reduce particulate matter and ozone-related emissions. This approach will likely result in new 

ideas for technologies to improve oil recovery technologies, as well as improve environmental protection in oil production and processing operations. The overlap of 

CCOS and the California Regional Particulate Matter Air Quality Study provides 

a unique opportunity to perform research related to petroleum-based VOC and particulate matter emissions as well as methods to characterize these categories of 

emissions. The CCOS program is utilizing modeling, instrumentation, and measurement to obtain results that can be used to better understand the impact of oil and 

gas exploration and production operations on air quality. CCOS program results 

might also be applied to identify the most efficient and cost-effective methods of reducing emissions from oil and gas operations. 

The Department of Energy has been a key participant in many programs with the 

oil and agricultural sectors. By becoming a partner in this program, DOE will be 

furthering its own goals of ‘‘Initiatives for Energy Security’’ by aiding domestic oil 

producers to enhance their environmental compliance while reducing their costs. 

DOE will also be building upon an established and effective partnership between 

state and local governments, industry, and institutional organizations. 

For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is also seeking funding of $250,000 from the 

National Park Service (NPS) and $250,000 from the Forest Service.—The National 

Park Service and Forest Service conduct prescribed burns that contribute to both 

ozone and particulate matter pollution. Prescribed burns are needed for forest 

health or to reduce fuel loads, and must be carefully managed to minimize public 

health and visibility impacts. 

Improving the fundamental science related to emissions, meteorological forecasting, and air quality modeling will help in designing effective smoke management 

programs. In addition, attainment of air quality standards is an important goal for 

protecting national parks and forests. Ozone damage to trees and vegetation in national parks and forests is well documented in California and nationwide. The National Park Service and Forest Service are key stakeholders relying on the success 

of SIPs in achieving the emission reductions needed to attain air quality standards. 

The participants in the CCOS have been partners in regional study efforts addressing visibility and haze impacts on national parks and forests in the West. The results of this study will provide valuable information that will further those efforts 

on a regional basis. 

Scientists at the University of Nevada, Desert Research Institute (DRI) are involved with the CCOS. To expedite research studies related to biomass burning and 

smoke management for CCOS, it is requested that funds provided by the National 

Park Service and Forest Service be allocated directly to DRI. 

Thank you very much for your consideration of our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CITIZENS FOR MOJAVE NATIONAL PARK

Mr. Chairman, the Citizens For Mojave National Park (CFMNP) would like to 

thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the fiscal year 2004 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

On behalf of the more than 500 members and supporters of CFMNP, an organization dedicated to protecting the natural and cultural resources of the Eastern Mojave Desert, I provide below our fiscal year 2004 funding recommendations for the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund projects and Conservation Trust Fund. Our top 

priorities include: 

—$450 million for Land and Water Conservation Fund federal land acquisition 

within the Conservation Trust Fund in fiscal year 2004: 

—we specifically recommend $2 million for the National Park Service to fund Mojave National Preserve federal LWCF projects; 

—the Conservation Trust Fund should be funded at its dedicated amount of $2.08 

million in fiscal year 2004. 

Adequate fund for the programs discussed below is vital to protect America’s wild 

areas and environmental values, essential components of our American identity and 

our heritage. The land and our relationship with it infuse our history, our heroes, 

and our hearts. We hope to work with you to find the resolve and funding to protect 

those values that, like freedom itself, are a national birthright. 

The Mojave National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service, is a diverse ecosystem that contains sand dunes, Joshua tree forests, desert washes, dry 

lakes, and mile-high mountains. The landscape provides habitat to a wide variety 

of animals including bighorn sheep, cougars, mule deer, and the threatened desert 
219

tortoise. Numerous private inholdings exist within the National Preserve, some of 

which have proposed development by the owners in the past. As these inholdings 

become available for purchase it is essential that they be acquired for preservation 

to prevent development and critical habitat loss. The purchase of critical inholdings 

within the Mojave National Preserve is an ongoing project and we request funding 

of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2004. Funding will be used to secure the most urgent 

properties first. 

In conclusion, it is important to our high desert communities that willing sellers 

have an avenue with which to sell their inholding properties within the Mojave National Preserve. This relatively new national preserve is a great tourism attraction 

in our county and brings in thousands of dollars of income to our desert communities each year. Please fund the Land and Water Fund with $450 million for fiscal 

year 2004 and the Conservation Trust Fund at $2.08 billion. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CIVIL WAR PRESERVATION TRUST

On behalf of the 43,000 members of the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT), 

I respectfully ask the Subcommittee’s support for the $2 million requested in President Bush’s fiscal year 2004 Budget for Civil War battlefield preservation matching 

grants. The request is included in the Federal side of the National Park Service’s 

land acquisition appropriations account financed from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

In fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2002, Congress allocated a total of $19 million 

for Civil War battlefield preservation matching grants. Most of the funding has already been put to good use, saving more than 10,000 acres of key endangered battlefields in 14 states. CWPT has met with Subcommittee Majority and Minority staff 

to provide them with specific information demonstrating these results and contrasting them to the costly legislative taking at the Manassas, Virginia, battlefield 

in 1988. 

However, despite these accomplishments, much more needs to be done if our children and grandchildren are to have the opportunity to walk these precious and 

threatened historic resources. 

For this reason, Congress late last year authorized a total of $50 million for Civil 

War battlefield preservation matching grants between fiscal year 2004 and fiscal 

year 2008. The bill, which received broad bipartisan support, was signed into law 

by President Bush on December 17, 2002 (Public Law 107–359). These Federal 

grants must be matched on a one-to-one basis by the Government’s partners in state 

and local governments and the private sector. 

The grants will be administered on a competitive basis through the American Battlefield Protection Program, an arm of the National Park Service. The program will 

employ ranking criteria developed by the 1993 Congressionally established Civil 

War Sites Advisory Commission, on which House Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Charles Taylor served. 

I should also emphasize that none of the matching grants will go to finance Civil 

War Preservation Trust or other non-Federal staff or overhead. All the funding will 

be directly used to protect America’s historic battlefields. 

The President’s $2 million request will build on the success of the fiscal year 1999 

and fiscal year 2002 funding and last year’s historic authorization legislation. It is 

an excellent example of sensible, cost-effective public/private land conservation. 

In addition, it will complement the ‘‘Preserve America’’ initiative announced by 

the First Lady on March 3, 2003. This initiative is intended to bring history alive 

for all Americans. 

The President’s fiscal year 2004 request features: 

—cooperative Federal partnerships with state and local governments and the private sector; 

—acquisition of lands and interests in lands from willing sellers only, outside the 

boundaries of National Park System units (thus, not adding to the Park Service’s backlog of deferred maintenance); 

—highly targeted funding using matching grants and the already established, 

Congressionally sanctioned, priority list of Civil War battlefield sites recommended by the 1993 Commission (this is no ‘‘save everything everywhere 

program’’); and 

—most importantly, the opportunity to preserve historic resources that illuminate 

the past and tell us what it means to be Americans (resources that will be gone 

forever over the next 5–10 years if we do not act now). 

Mr. Chairman, the Civil War Preservation Trust is grateful for the past support 

Congress has given to the issue of battlefield preservation. We look forward to work-
220

ing with Subcommittee Members and staff to ensure that the momentum of past 

accomplishments is maintained in the coming year. 

In particular, our chairman, Paul Bryant, our vice-chairman, John Nau (who is 

also the chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), and I are especially appreciative of Congressional support of Civil War battlefield preservation, 

and what the previous appropriations and the $2 million request for fiscal year 2004 

have meant, and will mean, for the permanent protection of hallowed ground 

throughout the nation. 

Thank you for your consideration and your attention to this matter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF ACADIA

I am writing on behalf of Friends of Acadia to respectfully request $1,633,351,000 

in operations for the National Park Service in the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill. This represents an increase to the Park Service’s operating budget by 

$102 million above the President’s request and $178 million above the enacted fiscal 

year 2003 level. 

Friends of Acadia is a nonprofit conservation organization located in Bar Harbor, 

Maine. The organization’s mission is to preserve and protect the outstanding natural beauty, ecological vitality, and cultural distinctiveness of Acadia National Park 

and its surrounding communities. Friends has approximately 4,000 members in 

Maine and 32 other states who share a common love for the park, Maine’s most visited natural destination. 

Two years ago, a business plan was completed for Acadia under the national Business Planning Initiative, a program started by the National Parks Conservation Association in conjunction with the National Park Service and several private foundations. On average, business plans completed at national parks across the country 

showed a 32 percent annual operational funding shortfall ($600 million overall). At 

Acadia, the situation was much worse—a 53 percent or $7.3 million annual operating funding shortfall. 

Despite the best efforts of Acadia National Park staff, these operating funding 

shortfalls limit the Park Service’s ability to fully manage park resources and serve 

the three million visitors who come to the park each year. Some examples: 

—The park’s complex, 115-mile boundary and miles of roads and trails are not 

adequately patrolled, resulting in resource damage from illegal snowmobile and 

all-terrain vehicle use, illegal trail cutting, and poaching. 

—Acadia National Park owns or holds conservation easements on more than 70 

coastal Maine islands. Due to operational funding shortfalls, park staff is unable to routinely monitor and protect important archaeological sites on these islands. 

—A pair of Civil War-era dueling pistols and museum artifacts that are centuries 

old sit in boxes at park headquarters, awaiting cataloging and preservation with 

more than a million other objects because there is not enough funding to do the 

job. 

—Over the next few years, Acadia will be restoring the natural and cultural environments of the Park’s campgrounds (i.e. revegetate social trails, repair water 

and road systems, etc.), yet these improvements are at risk if operational dollars are not available to maintain them. 

Acadia is fortunate to have received several operating funding increases in recent 

years, and we thank you for your leadership in securing these crucial operating dollars. Unfortunately, however, the National Park Service operating budget, including 

Acadia, has failed to keep pace with the increasing demands being placed on our 

parks. 

Friends of Acadia recognizes that in these difficult times, there are many needs 

competing for limited funding. Our national parks, especially Acadia, represent an 

important quiet refuge for American citizens, and they help protect much of our natural and cultural heritage. We support a $178 million increase in the National Park 

Service operations over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level because we feel that it 

demonstrates long-term Congressional commitment to preserving the National 

Parks while preventing greater costs in the future to repair degraded national assets. 

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRIENDS OF GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK

As you prepare the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill, Friends of Great 

Smoky Mountains National Park respectfully requests your support for 
221

$1,633,351,000 in operations for the National Park Service, an increase to the Park 

Service’s operating budget of $102 million above the President’s request, $178 million above the enacted fiscal year 2003 level. 

We thank you for your leadership and commitment to our national parks, and ap- preciate the increase of $98 million that the Committee provided for park operations 

during the fiscal year 2003 appropriations process. As you know, unfortunately, this 

funding increase was significantly reduced in the final fiscal year 2003 figures. 

While the National Park Service’s operating budget has increased in recent years, 

it has failed to keep pace with the increasing demands being placed on our parks. 

The Park Service operating budget is critical to protecting park resources and providing visitor services for the nearly 300 million people who visit our national parks 

annually. 

These funding shortfalls are a source of significant concern for Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park, the most popular national park in the country. This is 

especially true for the park’s law enforcement program, which experiences one of the 

heaviest law enforcement workloads in the system. The park is also impacted by 

rapid development, intense visitation, and special events conducted in gateway communities. Over the years, the park’s ability to sustain its law enforcement program 

has steadily eroded, resulting in a consolidation of districts, a reduction in law enforcement supervisory positions, and elimination of the park’s dedicated backcountry 

patrol function. Even with a more streamlined organizational structure, at current 

levels, the Division needs an additional $532,000 to sustain currently approved positions on a year-round basis. To make ends meet, the Division has had to lapse a 

large number of positions for sustained periods and will have to do so for the foreseeable future. The safety and well being of remaining staff—and visitors—are compromised. 

Additional funding shortfalls have been identified in other aspects of the park’s 

operations—from preventative maintenance to historic preservation. Similar stories 

can be told about other units of the National Park System ranging from Glacier National Park in Montana to Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota and 

many more. While we welcome line-item appropriations to address law enforcement 

and other operating needs in the Smokies and other specific parks, we realize that 

the funding problem affects the entire park system and that it requires a more comprehensive solution. 

By increasing operating dollars for the National Park Service, Congress can take 

a critical step toward providing Great Smoky Mountains National Park and the 

other 387 units of the National Park System the funding they need and deserve. 

An increase of $178 million in the parks’ operating budgets this year represents a 

reasonable and manageable amount, and it signifies a wise investment to protect 

these priceless assets. It is critical to protect our national treasures at a time when 

their values and resources are so greatly needed by the American public. 

We thank you again for your support for our national parks, and we appreciate 

your continuing attention to this important matter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION

As you prepare the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations bill, we respectfully 

request $1,633,351,000 in operations for the National Park Service, an increase to 

the Park Service’s operating budget by $102 million above the president’s request, 

$178 million above the enacted fiscal year 2003 level. 

We thank you for your leadership and commitment to our national parks, and appreciate the increase of $98 million the Committee provided for park operations in 

its bill during the fiscal year 2003 appropriation process. As you know, unfortunately, this funding increase was significantly reduced in the final 2003 omnibus appropriations act. 

While the National Park Service’s operating budget has increased in recent years, 

it has failed to keep pace with the increasing demands being placed on our national 

parks. The Park Service operating budget is critical to protecting park resources and 

providing visitor services to the nearly 300 million visitors to our national parks annually. 

In Grand Canyon National Park, the operations budget has remained relatively 

flat over recent years. A Business Plan Initiative study conducted for the park last 

summer measured $8,500,000 as its annual operating budgetary shortfall. This limits the park’s ability to provide transit needs in one of the world’s most popular national parks. It limits the park’s staff ability to manage and protect the endangered 

California condor. It limits the park’s ability to defend remote backcountry canyons 

from the encroachment of nonnative plants like the widely spreading, water hungry 
222

tamarisk. Increased operating dollars for the Park Service represent a critical step 

toward providing Grand Canyon National Park and the other 387 units of the National Park System the needed funding to survive and meet the needs of constituents. 

An increase of $178 million in the parks’ operating budgets this year represents 

a reasonable and manageable amount, and is a small price to pay to protect these 

priceless assets. While we recognize that our nation is faced with many important 

funding needs during these challenging times, shortchanging the Park Service’s operating budget now will only result in escalating costs in the future. 

Americans are unified in supporting our national parks. On behalf of the Grand 

Canyon, and all our national parks, we urge your support so that current and future 

generations will enjoy these irreplaceable national treasures. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (NPS)

Natural Resource Challenge 

The Association has previously raised serious concerns regarding the conduct and 

products of the National Resources challenge which National Park Service has not 

address to our satisfaction. Therefore, the Association can no longer support funding 

under the Natural Resource Challenge until the Association’s concerns are adequately addressed. Despite repeated requests described below, to date we remain 

unable to ascertain what has actually been accomplished with the previous four 

years’ expenditures in this program. We supported this program when it was established in fiscal year 2000 as a five-year effort ‘‘to allow critical conduct of scientific 

inventory, preservation, protection and management activities, thus bringing the 

parks current data and other tools necessary to identify and address management 

needs’’ by the end of fiscal year 2004. In fiscal year 2001, the Association continued 

to support the program but urged Congress request status reports to assess NPS’ 

progress in meeting the original goals. The Association did not support funding increases requested in fiscal year 2002, the third year of the program, due to concerns 

regarding the conduct and lack of accountability in reaching identified products. The 

fiscal year 2002 budget stated ‘‘there are nearly $470 million in unfunded natural 

resource project needs identified in Resource Management Plans’’ [p.41] and claimed 

that ‘‘the percentage of the basic inventory needs completed has increased from 20 

percent to approximately 40 percent by the end of fiscal year 2002 . . .’’ [p. 102]. 

Despite these statements, no accounting of the needs and products are provided. 

Thus, in fiscal year 2003 the Association refused to support any funding, noting it 

was the fourth year NPS requested significant increases, originally established as 

a five-year program. The NPS provided an Annual Performance Plan section in the 

fiscal year 2002 budget and each year provided reports to Congress consisting of 

general overviews with few specific examples. The NPS has yet to list the items for 

which funding has been received each year and the status of completing the previously identified project and inventory needs. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request is the fifth year of the five-year program. 

With the requested $8.5 million increase, the fiscal year 2004 NPS budget includes 

a total of $76 million for the Natural Resource Challenge. The Association finds that 

it cannot support funding for this program until a clear presentation of the status 

of projects is available, as repeatedly requested, along with specific information on 

the natural resource information needs. Some of the fiscal year 2004 budget documents state the program is ‘‘designed to protect native species and habitats through 

resource management and performance measures’’ and that the fiscal year 2004 ‘‘increase will focus on monitoring resources.’’ Specifics in the fiscal year 2004 budget 

indicate the increases will be used ‘‘to establish 25 of 32 monitoring networks that 

track the vital signs of the health of the national parks.’’ Without the requested program specifics, we interpret from the above that considerable increases in staffing 

has occurred rather than actual data acquisition as justified at the program’s inception: ‘‘critical conduct of scientific inventory, preservation, protection and management activities, thus bringing the parks current data and other tools necessary to 

identify and address management needs’’ by the end of fiscal year 2004. 

The Association is also concerned that projects have been developed without consultation with the State fish and wildlife agencies. While NPS may have exclusive 

jurisdiction within some units of the park system, the state fish and wildlife agency(s) authority overlays many park units. Furthermore, fish and wildlife move 

across boundaries. Thus, any inventory and monitoring efforts should be fully co-
223

ordinated with the states prior to the selection, development, design, and during the 

conduct of the projects. 

The Association urges the NPS to coordinate closely with the respective state fish 

and wildlife agencies so that programs and activities do not compromise State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife and to facilitate the cooperative 

design and conduct of research and management programs. Collaborative efforts between the NPS and the state fish and wildlife agencies play a critical role in achieving land and resource objectives for species and related resources. We are aware of 

numerous projects that have been conducted without appropriate coordination with 

the state to use current research techniques or collect useful information. The Association further recommends that funds be made available to the States to maximize 

discretion of the States in fish and wildlife data, monitoring, and management 

needs, wherever possible, instead of duplicating or authorizing conflicting programs. 

Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU) 

The Association retains strong concerns about the establishment and continued 

expansion by NPS of the Cooperative Ecosystem Units and therefore requests that 

Congress direct the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to clearly and explicitly identify the need for CESUs and articulate the distinction between these entities and the Fish and Wildlife Cooperative Units in the BRD of USGS. It is the 

Association’s conclusion that, unless such a distinction can be clearly articulated 

and the need clearly identified, Congress should ultimately transfer all monies 

budgeted for the establishment and operation of CESUs be to the Biological Resources Division of the USGS. NPS has used Natural Resource Challenge monies 

to create 12 CESUs located in universities and intends to establish 5 more in fiscal 

year 2004. The purpose of the CESUs is to coordinate and conduct resource research 

within and adjacent to the park units and to cooperate in other agencies’ research. 

The BRD was created and continues to be funded to serve as the primary research 

arm for the Department of the Interior bureaus. This research function was solidified with the transfer of the Cooperative Research Units from the FWS to BRD, establishing one research arm to prioritize and conduct quality, credible, and coordinated research on resources. However, the creation of and continued expansion of 

natural resources research activities in the CESUs, separately established within 

NPS, has led to duplication of effort among federal and state agencies, confusion 

among cooperators, and significant expenditures of limited resources. Because Congress intends that BRD be the research arm of the USDI, the Association urges 

Congress to direct the Secretary to undertake the appropriate analysis of the need 

for CESUs in the NPS. 

Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) and Traditional Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) State Grants Program 

The Association supports the fiscal year 2004 funding of $12.0 million in the Cooperative Conservation Initiative for natural resource protection as part of the Challenge Cost Share program. The proposed CCI’s intended goal is ‘‘restoration, protection and enhancement of natural areas.’’ We urge NPS to thoroughly consult with 

the states, including the State fish and wildlife agencies, to ensure that the goal of 

the grants is appropriately addressed in dispersing this $12 million. We similarly 

urge that the additional $10 million funded in the traditional NPS Challenge Cost 

Share and Public Lands Volunteers program be dispersed through a coordinated 

consultation process with the states. 

Brucellosis 

A significant problem still exists with regard to brucellosis, which affects domestic 

livestock and other animals and is present in elk and bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area, located within the states of Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The Association understands that NPS and the Fish and Wildlife Service intend again this year 

to contribute to a research program conducted by the Biological Resources Division 

of USGS to improve the vaccination program for brucellosis in elk and bison. This 

continuing need should clearly be carried as a budget item, rather than identified 

as a program that will be funded on an ‘‘ability to pay’’ basis by the several agencies. The Association strongly supports this research endeavor, but remains concerned about the level of cooperation with the involved states. We urge the commitment of these several Department of the Interior Bureaus to this project be affirmed 

in their respective budgets through some type of formal agreement, in full cooperation with the states involved. 
224

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE

On behalf of the Japanese Americans Citizens League, the nation’s oldest and 

largest Asian Pacific American civil rights organization, I am writing to express our 

unqualified support for funding to continue a study of the Eagledale Ferry Dock site 

on Bainbridge Island, Washington (authorized under Public Law No. 107–363). 

As you may know, on March 30, 1942, a little over one month after Executive 

Order 9066 was signed, 227 men, women and children on Bainbridge Island were 

herded onto a ferry at the former Eagledale dock to begin their journey to internment camps. This community was the very first group of Japanese Americans in the 

United States to be forced from their homes to be interned. Only allowed to bring 

what they could carry or wear, they boarded the ferry ‘‘Kehloken’’ with their friends 

and neighbors watching, and said goodbye to Bainbridge Island, beginning a lonely 

journey with an unknown destination and fate. 

This tragic episode in is an important part of American history that must be preserved to ensure that the full and rich diversity of our history is represented on the 

public record. This site is the literal and symbolic starting point for the Minidoka 

Internment National Monument (ID) and the Manzanar National Historic Site (CA), 

two internment camps already designated by the National Park Service, and it 

should be preserved for future generations to learn about the experience of Japanese 

Americans during the war. Bainbridge Island is a short ferry ride from Seattle and 

the site would be within easy reach for those discovering or wanting to learn about 

this period in our nation’s history. 

The National Park Service has already demonstrated its their commitment to this project by allocating initial funds of $25,000, and while we believe this is an excellent start, the entire study is estimated at $250,000. We would like to urge the committee to fully fund the National Park Service’s budget for special resources studies 

with an addition of $150,000 for the Bainbridge Island study, above and beyond the 

$500,000 request in the NPS budget. 

The Bainbridge Island site is a tremendous opportunity to allow history to come 

to life outside the confines of a classroom. The story of this community will educate 

future generations about the courage of Americans—those who suffered sixty years 

ago by being removed from their homes and those who supported their friends as 

they left, in their absence and upon their return home. 

Continuing the special resources study is essential to tell this American story, and 

we respectfully urge the committee to fully fund the National Park Service’s budget 

for special resources studies with an addition of $150,000 for the Bainbridge Island 

site. Thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources strongly supports efforts by 

Congress to continue the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) stateside program. We urge the Subcommittee to allocate $200 million to the LWCF stateside 

program for fiscal year 2004. In addition, we request that you fund the Conservation 

Trust Fund (CARA Lite) at the dedicated amount of $2.08 billion. 

Over the last three years, the reinvigorated LWCF stateside program has helped 

fund over 50 state and local park and openspace projects across Minnesota. Historically the LWCF projects include state parks and historic sites, trails, wildlife management areas, public water accesses, scientific and natural areas, state forests, and 

other areas. 

A few recent examples of projects that benefited from the LWCF program are: 

—Lake Gervais Park, a county park in the suburbs of St. Paul 

—Split Rock Lighthouse State Park, a well known landmark on Lake Superior 

—Tansem Prairie, a state Scientific and Natural Area in Clay County 

—Maple Creek Trail, a nature/walking trail in Owatonna. 

These and many other projects were made possible by the availability of the stateside LWCF funds. These funds allow for the: 

—Acquisition of critical open space threatened by development 

—Renovation of outdated, unsafe facilities 

—Protection of high quality natural areas 

—Improved accessibility of parks and trails for people of all abilities 

—Provision of a wide variety of outdoor recreational opportunities. 

For our Spring 2003 grant round, preliminary requests for local park, trail and 

open space projects in Minnesota alone total over $65 million. In addition to this 

figure, the backlog of state park and trail acquisition and renovation needs is in the 

tens of millions. The current LWCF Program is able to meet only a fraction of these 

needs. 
225

1 All quotes in this testimony come from the First Lady’s March 3, 2003, ‘‘Preserve America’’ 

speech available at the White House website. 

One of our most urgent needs in Minnesota is to protect open space in rapidly 

developing portions of the state, particularly in counties surrounding the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. As land prices accelerate, however, local government resources are inadequate to meet these rising needs. For example, one county seeking 

to acquire lakeshore and a high quality wooded area near the rapidly growing City 

of St. Cloud requires an initial investment of at least $2 million. While local officials 

have identified willing sellers, they will be hard-pressed to raise all this money locally, without outside assistance. For many years, the LWCF program has provided 

such assistance. 

State projects would also benefit from LWCF funds. The new Red River State 

Recreation Area, the scene of massive residential flooding several years ago, has 

been reclaimed as a state park in East Grand Forks. With the assistance of the 

LWCF program we anticipate the potential development of a new campground. Another project that could benefit from the LWCF program is expanding our camper 

cabins in 15 state parks throughout the state. In addition, near the City of Granite 

Falls, we hope to acquire a native prairie area that is home to threatened plant and 

animal species. 

These projects offer just a few examples of how the stateside LWCF program ben- efits the citizens of Minnesota. Increasing the LWCF stateside funding level to $200 

million in fiscal year 2004 will help us reach our goals. We believe that this funding 

level is consistent with the commitment made by Congress and the current Administration to the LWCF program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE HISTORIC

PRESERVATION OFFICERS

SHPOS.—MAKING PRESERVE AMERICA A REALITY THIS YEAR 

[Historic Preservation Fund Fiscal Year 2004] 

Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2004 

budget 

State Historic Preservation Offices: 

Core ................................................................................................... $33,779,000 $50,000,000 $34,000,000

Expedite project reviews ................................................................... ........................ 10,000,000 ........................

Local communities’ preservation ...................................................... ........................ 30,000,000 ........................

Tribes ......................................................................................................... 3,000,000 10,000,000 3,000,000 

Save America’s Treasures .......................................................................... 29,805,000 30,000,000 30,000,000 

NTHP Hist. Sites Fund ............................................................................... 1,987,000 ........................ ........................

Totals ............................................................................................ 68,571,000 130,000,000 67,000,000

Preservation is a high priority for this Administration.—On March 3, 2003, the 

First Lady announced the Preserve America 1 initiative and the President issued Executive Order No. 13287 directing federal agencies to assess, preserve and use the 

historic resources in their control, particularly for heritage tourism. 

Historic Preservation Fund Puts Preserve America into Practice.—The Historic 

Preservation Fund has for three decades put the Preserve America principles in 

practice by laying the foundation for the nation’s historic preservation program. The 

fundamentals of historic preservation are finding historic places, nomination of significant places to the National Register, opening the door to localities to participate 

officially, protecting historic National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 2004 Historic Preservation Fund Testimony Interior Appropriations Subcommittee places from inadvertent harm by federal agencies, and supporting private 

investment in rehabilitation through the rehabilitation tax credit (over $2 billion annually). State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) deliver these programs to the 

local level on behalf of the Department of the Interior. Preserve America updates 

historic preservation program launched by the National Historic Preservation Act 

(16 USC 470) in 1966. 

Although the Administration recommended a reduced level of funding for the 

State Historic Preservation Offices for 2004, it is obvious from his Preserve America 

initiative that the President strongly supports historic preservation and the kind of 

federal/State/local partnership program the SHPOs administer. The cornerstone of 
226

the 2003 Preserve America program is cooperation among federal, State and local 

governments to identify and use cultural resources for economic development, a 

function SHPOs have been performing since the passage of the National Historic 

Preservation Act in 1966. We hope the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee will 

use the 2004 Historic Preservation Fund appropriation to make the SHPO programs 

full partners in Preserve America. 

‘‘Our land is the foundation upon which the American story is written. Our history is rooted in buildings, parks and towns.’’

Congress: Make Preserve America a 2004 Reality for All Americans.—The National 

Conference of SHPOs request for fiscal year 2004 will make Preserve America a reality including funding for tribal grants and Save America’s Treasures. The purpose 

of this testimony is to explain the need for a $50,000,000 withdrawal from the Historic Preservation Fund for the core preservation programs run by SHPOs. The 

First Lady said on March third, ‘‘America is blessed with historic architecture, landscapes, and communities, everyone [emphasis added] tells a story. . . . But to prepare for the future, we must remember our history.’’ Before you can tell the story, 

you have to know the story which means research and study. An increase in core 

program funding will dramatically increase SHPOs’ historic site inventory work, 

publication of results, and entry of the data on to computerized geographic information systems. 

Historic site research brings the past to life. Owners who want recognition for 

their stories look to the National Register to confirm the significance of their properties. Funding the core program at $50,000,000 will give the SHPOffices the resources to prepare nominations (which low funding has eliminated) and to help and 

train private citizens volunteering to prepare nominations. 

‘‘The second goal of Preserve America is to support community efforts to restore 

cultural resources for heritage tourism.’’

Heritage tourism is an important part of economic development for many communities. It relies on the authentic experience. SHPOs’ historic site surveys and National Register nominations provide the facts upon which heritage tourism programs 

are built. $50,000,000 for States’ core programs will benefit heritage tourism by expanding the number of heritage sites to visit. 

‘‘Preserve America . . . will provide . . . greater support to protect and restore 

our nation’s cultural . . . from monuments and buildings to landscapes and main 

streets.’’ 

Preserve America Involves Protection.—Protection is an important part of historic 

preservation. State Historic Preservation Offices protect historic places in several 

ways. First, recognition and common knowledge about historic places helps the public support preservation. Second, the SHPOs operate a volunteer program for local 

governments who decide to enact local ordinances and operate historic preservation 

programs. Core program funding at $50,000,000 will automatically increase the 

pass-through to local government partners from $3.4 million to $5 million. Third, 

SHPOs review every federal project proposed in their State—that’s a national total 

of 100,000 projects annually. SHPOs work with federal agencies and applicants to 

minimize adverse impacts on historic places. Protecting properties is a high priority 

for SHPOs. While cuts in the HPF have reduced or eliminated activity in other program areas, SHPOs have (until recent federal and state cuts) maintained protection 

activities. Every preservationist in America, relies on the SHPOs’ work reviewing 

federal projects and persuading agencies to modify the scope to protect historic 

places when needed.’’The President wants to continue his support and the preservation of our heritage through Preserve America. Today, President Bush signed an Executive Order . . . [which] directs federal agencies to inventory and promote greater 

use of historic sites in partnership with state, tribal, and local governments. Preserve America will provide more opportunities for preservation and increase tourism 

and economic development.’’

North Carolina response times 

Fiscal year 

2001 2002 

At a HPF Allocation of ............................................................................................................ $897,000 ....... $747,000 

To help developers using historic tax credit ......................................................................... 30 days .......... 60 days 

On National Register nominations ......................................................................................... 3 months ....... 7 months 

to local governments seeking information ............................................................................. 3 days ............ 3 weeks 

Historic Preservation Fund Decisions Adversely Affect the Private Sector.—There 

are consequences when the Historic Preservation Fund is cut. Discretionary programs get cut first. As cuts go deeper, non-discretionary programs get cut too which 
227

means reductions in force. These cuts cost time and money to everyone who uses 

SHPO services. The impacts fall hardest on private business and federal projects. 

Reducing the resources to SHPOs has the same effect as narrowing the neck of a 

funnel—the flow is constrained. As an example, Wyoming’s average response time 

for individual federal projects increased from 12 days in fiscal year 2001 to 18 days 

in fiscal year 2002 following the decline in their allocation from $680,000 to 

$569,000. 

These increases in response time affect applicants who need SHPO comments. Applicants for an oil and gas lease or for an Army Corps permit and developers borrowing money to invest in a historic rehabilitation project face increased carrying 

costs because of extended response times. 

The National Conference of SHPOs proposes a special $10,000,000 withdrawal 

from the Historic Preservation Fund to focus exclusively on upgrading historic site 

surveys, inventory information and geographic information systems in areas of high 

potential for development and future federal agency activity. Historic preservation 

needs to stop being an obstacle to project planning and to streamline and expedite 

project reviews. 

Preserve America Through Private Investment and Economic Development.—America has seen a decade of private investment in historic preservation at a level of $2 

billion a year. Investors have seen the potential in America’s underused historic resources for productive, modern uses. The rehabilitation investment tax credit has 

provided the incentive for this voluntary commitment to America’s historic downtowns and neighborhoods. State Historic Preservation Offices are the delivery system for developers and owners. Increasing the core funding for SHPOs to 

$50,000,000 will provide the resources for the time consuming, pre-construction 

technical assistance to advise on historic preservation alternatives. Equally important, an increase in core programs to $50,000,000 will provide resources to expedite 

National Register nomination processing. (National Register listing is a requirement 

for rehab tax credit eligibility.) 

‘‘Preserve America will promote historic and cultural preservation and encourage 

greater public appreciation of our national treasures.’’

‘‘Help Americans Volunteer for Preservation.’’—Core funding of $50,000,000 for the 

State Historic Preservation Offices will mean a return of preservation education programs to help volunteers prepare National Register nominations, work toward local 

preservation ordinances, and prepare for heritage tourism. Further beneficiaries of 

public education will include federal agencies working to fulfill the mandates of the 

President’s Executive Order 13278 whose offices are closer to a State capitol than 

to Washington. 

Preserve America and Preserving America’s Beloved Landmarks.—The First Lady 

said, ‘‘Many of our historic sites and monuments are deteriorating and need to be 

preserved.’’ That is why the National Conference of SHPOs is proposing a special 

grant program to flow through the SHPOs to localities to provide matching, restoration grants for the landmarks that have meaning to ordinary American’s. Montana’s 

Treasure State Treasures Survey will identify what Montanans what they value 

from the past. While the companion Save America’s Treasures is reserved for an 

elite category of properties that people in Washington see as nationally significant, 

the $30,000,000 for local landmarks will be dedicated to the places that everyday 

Americans value. 

Preserve America: , ‘‘. . . what will we pass down to our children—what will their 

heritage be?’’—SHPOs want to work with Congress and the First Lady to Preserve 

America. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) is the only national, nonprofit conservation organization that advocates exclusively for the national parks. 

Through public education, advocacy, and citizen outreach, NPCA works to protect, 

preserve, and enhance America’s National Park System for present and future generations. 

NPCA is pleased to share its views regarding the programs in the Department 

of Interior’s budget that affect national park resources and requests that this statement be included in the hearing record for the fiscal year 2004 Interior and Related 

Agencies appropriations bill. We appreciate the opportunity to share with you our 

priorities for funding and respectfully request the Committee consider these views 

as the fiscal year 2004 budget is shaped. 
228

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE OPERATIONS

A top priority for NPCA in the budget of the National Park Service is to significantly increase funding for the operations of the Park Service. NPCA requests an 

increase of $178 million over the current fiscal year 2003 spending levels, $102 million above the president’s request, for a total of $1,633,351,000 in fiscal year 2004 

for the operation of the National Park System. 

NPCA greatly appreciates your leadership and commitment to our national parks, demonstrated in the increase of $98 million that the Committee provided for park 

operations in the fiscal year 2003 Interior appropriations process. As you know, this 

funding increase was unfortunately significantly reduced in the final 2003 omnibus 

appropriations act. 

As you know, park operational funding continues to lag behind the need. This situation is further aggravated by homeland security needs, which have put increased 

pressure on park budgets and staffing. For example, many park rangers have been 

reassigned to security detail at icon and border parks, leaving their visitor interpretation and resource protection duties unmet. In addition, National Park Service Director Fran Mainella recently stated that added security expenditures since the 

Code Orange alert are anticipated to cost the national parks an additional $23 million annually. 

While Congress has regularly increased the operating budget of the parks, research in more than 50 parks has shown that funding fails to keep pace with need. 

On average, the national parks are operating with only two-thirds of the needed 

funding—an annual shortfall of more than $600 million system-wide. An increase 

of $178 million in the national parks’ operating budget this year represents a reasonable and manageable amount, and a critical step toward fulfilling the mission 

of the Park Service and protecting our national heritage. 

Just last month, Director Mainella testified to the House Interior Appropriations 

Subcommittee that, ‘‘support of park operations is integral to fulfilling the mission 

of the National Park Service.’’ As caretaker of some of our nation’s most valued natural, cultural, and historic resources, the Park Service has a tremendous responsibility, managing 388 sites nationwide. 

NPS NATURAL RESOURCES CHALLENGE

NPCA strongly supports the National Park Service’s Natural Resources Challenge(a successful multi-year program to preserve and protect the natural resources 

of the national parks. We request an increase of $20 million above enacted fiscal 

year 2003 level, $11.5 million above the administration’s request for this important 

program. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Frederick Douglass National Historical Site, Washington, D.C.—$2 million in fiscal year 2004 for historic preservation of this important home. Mr. Douglass’ historic 

1850s home in Anacostia is in need of immediate repair. The National Park Service 

lacks critical funding and staff to meet day-to-day needs and to protect Mr. Douglass’ personal belongings and the integrity of the property. For example, $550,000 

is needed to restore light-damaged photographs from the 19th century and to restore 

Mr. Douglass’ treasured library collection. The site also needs funding to complete 

a Landscape Maintenance Plan and to hire archaeological expertise to inventory and 

protect the park’s cultural and archaeological resources. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE LAND ACQUISITION

Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas.—$10 million in fiscal year 2004, $6.6 million above the administration’s request, to complete acquisition of land previously 

owned by timber companies within the 1994 boundary expansion. Big Thicket National Preserve, often called the ‘‘biological crossroads of North America,’’ contains 

a unique mix of southeastern swamps, eastern deciduous forest, central plains, pine 

savannas, and dry sandhills. This acquisition is critical to protecting this unique 

area. 

Cedar Creek & Belle Grove National Historical Park, Virginia.—$2 million in fiscal year 2004 to acquire land from willing sellers in this model partnership park 

dedicated in January 2003. Private landowners have expressed an interest in the 

National Park Service acquiring land in Cedar Creek & Belle Grove. $2 million is 

a reasonable amount to provide the Park Service a foundation for moving forward 

with serious discussions. 

Everglades Restoration, Florida.—$20 million in fiscal year 2004 to provide assistance to the State of Florida in purchasing lands needed to restore the Everglades. 
229

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) requires that more than 

200,000 acres of land be purchased for water storage, flow and treatment. With the 

rising cost of real estate and increasing pressure to develop land in South Florida, 

it is critical that land acquisition remain on track. 

Fort Clatsop National Memorial, Oregon.—$8 million in fiscal year 2004 to purchase from willing sellers a portion of the 1,500-acre expansion of the memorial. 

President Bush signed the Fort Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act into law 

on August 21, 2002, authorizing the expansion. Acquiring this land is important 

step in preparation for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial event to culminate at Fort 

Clatsop in November 2005. The Clatsop County Board of Commissioners and Governor of Oregon support this acquisition. 

Mojave National Preserve, California.—$2 million in fiscal year 2004 to complete 

purchase of approximately 4,000–6,000 acres of the nearly 150,000 acres of privately 

held lands in the Preserve. We appreciate the $1 million provided by the Committee 

in fiscal year 2003. $2 million in additional funds are needed in fiscal year 2004 

to continue the purchase of sensitive lands within the boundary of the Mojave Preserve. 

Tumacacori National Historical Park, Arizona.—$3 million in fiscal year 2004 to 

acquire 310 acres. The Tumacacori National Historical Park Boundary Revision Act 

of 2001, signed into law by President Bush on August 21, 2002, expanded the 

boundaries of the park to protect portions of the original mission, historic orchards, 

and ancient irrigation systems that are extremely vulnerable to subdivision development. 

Obed Wild and Scenic River, Tennessee.—$1.5 million in fiscal year 2004 to acquire approximately 1,000 acres of inholdings within the Obed Wild and Scenic 

River corridor in Tennessee. We appreciate the Committee including this request in 

the fiscal year 2003 House bill, which was not, as you know, included in the final 

conference. The Obed is one of the few free-flowing streams of its type remaining 

in the entire six-state Cumberlands region, and is the only National Wild and Scenic 

River in Tennessee. 

Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona.—$5 million in fiscal year 2004 as a down 

payment to complete the purchase of private lands next to the park from willing 

sellers. The Arizona delegation is expected to introduce legislation this year to expand the boundaries of Petrified National Forest. A significant portion of lands 

within the proposed expansion area currently are in private or state ownership. Acquiring this land of nationally significant paleontological, archaeological, and scenic 

resources is important to their long-term protection. 

Valley Forge National Historical Park, Pennsylvania.—$10 million in fiscal year 

2004, $5 million above the president’s request. Of this amount, $6 million for acquisition of the Toll Brothers tract, and $4 million for additional acquisition, potentially 

approximately 100 acres owned by St. Gabriel’s School for Boys. Valley Forge preserves the history of the American Revolution through 190 historic structures and 

more than 600 archaeological sites, various wetlands, grasslands, woodlands, and 

wildlife, including more than 200 species of birds and several state-listed rare 

plants. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE CONSTRUCTION

Denali National Park, Alaska.—$750,000 in fiscal year 2004 to complete environmental reviews and compliance with all design and permitting requirements for the 

South Denali Nature Center. This funding was provided in the Senate fiscal year 

2003 bill, but unfortunately, was not included in Conference. This funding will help 

to alleviate visitor pressure on the existing park infrastructure and to provide a new 

opportunity for visitors on the south side of Denali National Park. The State of 

Alaska and the Park Service are working cooperatively on a South Denali Nature 

Center to be sited in Denali State Park, near the border of the national park. The 

Nature Center will focus visitor attention to the alpine environment through interpretive programs and a trail system. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE—OTHER

Everglades Modified Waters Deliveries Project.—$15 million in fiscal year 2004 for 

the Modified Waters Deliveries Project, an important Everglades restoration project 

launched prior to CERP. This project would return critical sheetflows of water to 

Everglades National Park. $30 million over the next two years is needed to complete 

this project, so we recommend $15 million this year. 

Everglades Restoration Plan Funding.—$10 million in fiscal year 2004 for the Department of Interior’s Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) funding. 
230

This important funding will enable the Park Service and other Interior agencies to 

carry out critical Everglades restoration projects. 

Everglades Science Funding.—$6 million in fiscal year 2004 for the Critical Ecosystem Studies Initiative (CESI), the Department of Interior’s research program designed to help guide Everglades restoration planning and project designs. A December 2002 report of the National Research Council of the National Academies of 

Science found that $4 million is insufficient to allow CESI to meet pressing science 

needs of the restoration program. 

National Park Service Soundscape Program Office.—$6 million in fiscal year 2004 

to hire contractors for research and development of air tour management plans in 

national parks. The National Park Air Tour Management Act of 2000 directed the 

Park Service to cooperate with the FAA on the development of air tour management 

plans in parks. While originally the Park Service and FAA anticipated that air tour 

operators would wish to fly over 55 parks, they have received applications for flights 

over more than 102 park units and require $6 million in fiscal year 2004 to meet 

its mandate on air tour management plan development. 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.—$11 million in fiscal year 2004 through the 

Historic Preservation Fund to stabilize funding for all Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officers (THPOs) and to accommodate new THPOs at a base level funding of 

$275,000 per Tribe. Increased THPO funding will enable Tribes to achieve more 

timely compliance with federal, states, and tribal historic preservation laws. The 

THPO program represents a successful partnership; tribes match federal THPO dollars at least 3 to 1. Examples of partnerships include the Navajo National Historic 

Preservation Department working with the Park Service at Chaco Culture National 

Historic Site and at Canyon de Chelly National Park. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: The Partnership for the National Trails System appreciates your support over the past several years, through 

operations funding and earmarked Challenge Cost Share funds, for the national scenic and historic trails administered by the National Park Service. We also appreciate your increased allocation of funds to support the trails administered and managed by the Forest Service and your support for the trails in the Bureau of Land 

Management’s National Landscape Conservation System. To continue the progress 

that you have fostered, the Partnership requests that you provide annual operations 

funding for each of the 23 national scenic and historic trails for Fiscal year 2004 

through these appropriations: 

—National Park Service.—$10.965 million for the administration of 18 trails and 

for coordination of the long-distance trails program by the Washington Park 

Service office. 

—USDA Forest Service.—$3.07 million to administer four trails and $750,000 for 

portions of 13 trails managed through agreements with the Park Service and 

Bureau of Land Management; Construction: $1 million for the Continental Divide Trail, $500,000 for the Florida Trail and $865,000 for the Pacific Crest 

Trail. 

—Bureau of Land Management.—To administer the Iditarod National Historic 

Trail: $410,000, the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail: 

$380,000, the Old Spanish National Historic Trail: $100,00 and $2.78 million 

to manage portions of 9 trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest 

Service; $385,000 for the Iditarod Trail interpretive center feasibility study. 

—We ask that you appropriate $9 million for the National Park Service Challenge 

Cost Share Program and continue to earmark $5 million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects and one-third of the remaining $4 million (approximately 

$1,326,000) for the other 17 national scenic and historic trails it administers. 

—We ask that you appropriate $1.253 million to the National Park Service National Center for Recreation and Conservation to support the second year of an 

interagency pilot project to develop a consistent system-wide Geographic Information System (GIS) for the National Trails System. 

We ask that you appropriate from the Land and Water Conservation Fund: 

—To the Forest Service.—$5 million to acquire land for the Pacific Crest Trail, $5 

million to acquire land for the Florida Trail, $3 million to acquire land for the 

Appalachian Trail in Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia; 

—To the Bureau of Land Management.—$1 million to acquire land for the Pacific 

Crest Trail, $2 million to acquire land for the Oregon Trail in Oregon, $500,000 

to acquire land for the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail in Arizona; 
231

—To the Park Service.—$4 million to grant to the State of Wisconsin to match 

state funds to acquire land for the Ice Age Trail; $1.5 million to grant to the 

States of Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio to match state funds to acquire land 

for the North Country Trail. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

We request $1.253 million to fund the second year of a 5 year interagency effort 

to develop a consistent GIS for all 23 national scenic and historic trails. This initiative is described in the August 2001 report (requested by Congress in the fiscal year 

2001 appropriation) ‘‘GIS For The National Trails System’’ and is built upon work 

already underway on the Ice Age, Appalachian, Florida, Oregon, California, Mormon 

Pioneer and Pony Express Trails to develop consistent information and procedures 

that can be applied across the National Trails System. The requested funding will 

be shared with the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. 

The $10.965 million we request for Park Service operations includes increases for 

many of the trails to continue the progress and new initiatives made possible by 

the $975,000 funding increase provided for nine of the trails in fiscal year 2001. 

$124,000 of our requested increase will finally provide significant operational support for the Natchez Trace Trail, which currently receives only $26,000 in annual 

operations funding. Another $381,000 will enable the Park Service to begin managing the three new national historic trails—Ala Kahakai, El Camino Real de Tierra 

Adentro, and Old Spanish—the latter two administered collaboratively with the Bureau of Land Management. These funds will provide full-time management and support projects for each of these trails. 

We request an increase of $51,000 for the Overmountain Victory Trail to enable 

the Overmountain Victory Trail Association to continue and expand the first comprehensive survey of historically significant sites along the trail and plan for their 

preservation. An increase of $52,000 will fund interpretive projects and the trail corridor study along the Potomac Heritage Trail in Washington, D.C. 

We request an increase of $316,000 to continue and expand Park Service efforts 

to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200 significant sites along the Santa Fe 

Trail and to fund public outreach and educational programs of the Santa Fe Trail 

Association. We also request an increase of $111,000 to expand cooperative interpretation with schools and Latino communities along the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail. 

An increase of $251,000 for the Trail of Tears will enable the Park Service to work 

cooperatively with the Trail of Tears Association to protect the Trail’s critical historical and cultural heritage sites and interpret them for visitors. 

The $402,000 increase we request for the interagency Salt Lake City Trails office 

will enable the Park Service to work with CALTRANS to mark the California and 

Pony Express Trails auto routes and to develop interpretive plans for wayside exhibits for these trails and the Oregon and Mormon Pioneer Trails. 

We request $2 million to fund the operation of ‘‘Corps II,’’ a major component of 

the Federal government’s commemoration of the Bicentennial of the Lewis & Clark 

Expedition. This interagency mobile interpretive exhibit is designed to follow the 

route of the Lewis & Clark Trail, stopping in communities along the way to provide 

state-of-the art, interactive interpretation of the Lewis & Clark ‘‘Corps of Discovery.’’

All of these trails are complicated undertakings, none more so than the 4,000 mile 

North Country Trail. With more than 650 miles of Trail across 7 national forests 

in 5 states there is good reason for close collaboration between the Park Service and 

Forest Service to ensure consistent management that provides high quality experiences for hikers. Limited budgets for both agencies have severely hampered their 

ability to practice this effective management procedure. The $840,000 we request 

will give them that ability for the first time while also providing greater support 

for the local trail building and management led by the North Country Trail Association, hastening the day when our nation’s longest national scenic trail will be fully 

opened for use. 

The $1,001,000 we request will enable the Park Service to expand the Geographic 

Information System (GIS) capability to more efficiently plan resource protection, 

trail construction and maintenance to correct unsafe conditions and better mark the 

1,200 mile Ice Age Trail for users. The funds will also provide assistance to the Ice 

Age Park & Trail Foundation to better equip, train and support the volunteers who 

build and maintain the Ice Age Trail and manage its resources. Some of the funds 

will be used to develop an interpretive plan for the Trail. 

The Challenge Cost Share program is one of the most effective and efficient ways 

for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of projects for public benefit while 

also sustaining partnerships involving countless private citizens in doing public 
232

service work. The Partnership requests that you appropriate $8.98 million in Challenge Cost Share funding to the Park Service for fiscal year 2004 as a wise investment of public money that will generate public benefits many times greater than 

its sum. We ask you to continue to direct $5 million for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial 

projects and one-third of the other $3.98 million for the national scenic and historic 

trails to continue the steady progress toward making these trails fully available for 

public enjoyment. 

USDA—FOREST SERVICE

As you have done for several years, we ask that you provide additional operations 

funding to the Forest Service for administering three national scenic trails and one 

national historic trail, and managing parts of 13 other trails. We ask you to appropriate $3.07 million as a separate budgetary item specifically for the Continental Divide, Florida and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce National 

Historic Trail. Full-time managers have been assigned for each of these trails by the 

Forest Service. Recognizing the on-the-ground management responsibility the Forest 

Service has for 838 miles of the Appalachian Trail, more than 650 miles of the 

North Country Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Anza, Lewis & Clark, California, 

Iditarod, Mormon Pioneer, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail of 

Tears and Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to appropriate $750,000 specifically for these 

trails. 

Work is underway, supported by funds you provided for the past four years, to 

close several major gaps in the Florida National Scenic Trail. The Florida Trail Association is building Trail across Eglin Air Force Base, in the Ocala National Forest, 

Big Cypress National Preserve and along Lake Kissimmee and the 

Choctawahatchee River, adding about 100 miles to the completed Florida Trail. The 

Partnership requests an additional $500,000 for trail construction in fiscal year 

2004 by the Forest Service on these and other segments of the Florida Trail. 

The Continental Divide Trail Alliance, with Forest Service assistance and funding 

from the outdoor recreation industry, surveyed the entire 3,200 mile route of the 

Continental Divide Trail documenting $10.3 million of construction projects needed 

to complete the Trail. To continue new trail construction, begun with fiscal year 

1998 funding, we ask that you appropriate $1,050,000 to plan 383 miles of new trail 

and $1 million to build or reconstruct 114 miles of the Continental Divide Trail and 

7 new trailheads in fiscal year 2004. 

A Forest Service lands team is working with the Pacific Crest Trail Association 

and the Park Service National Trail Land Resources Program Center to map and 

acquire better routes for the 300 miles of the 2,650 mile Pacific Crest Trail located 

on 227 narrow easements across private land or on the edge of dangerous highways. 

We request $200,000 to continue the work of the fulltime Trail Manager and the 

lands team and $100,000 for Optimal Location route planning. We also request 

$865,000 for new trail construction and reconstruction of fire-damaged bridges along 

the PCT by the Forest Service and the Pacific Crest Trail Association in fiscal year 

2004. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

While the Bureau of Land Management has administrative authority only for the 

Iditarod, El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro, and the Old Spanish National Historic 

Trails, it has on-the-ground management responsibility for 641 miles of two scenic 

trails and 3,115 miles of seven historic trails administered by the National Park 

Service and U.S. Forest Service. The significance of these trails was recognized by 

their inclusion in the National Landscape Conservation System and, for the first 

time, in fiscal year 2002, by provision of specific funding for each of them. The Partnership applauds the decision of the Bureau of Land Management to include the 

national scenic and historic trails in the NLCS and to budget specific funding for 

each of them. We ask that you continue to support the funding for the National 

Landscape Conservation System and that you appropriate for fiscal year 2004 

$410,000 for the Iditarod National Historic Trail, $380,000 for El Camino Real de 

Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail, $100,000 for the Old Spanish National Historic Trail and $2,780,000, as requested by the Administration, for management of 

the portions of the nine other trails under the care of the Bureau of Land Management. We also request $1 million for construction of the California Trail Interpretive 

Center in Elko, Nevada, $100,000 for maintenance of the Pacific Crest Trail, and 

$385,000 for a feasibility study for the Iditarod Trail interpretive center. 
233

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The Partnership requests that you fully appropriate the $900 million annual authorized appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and that you 

make the specific appropriations for national scenic and historic trails detailed at 

the beginning of this statement and in Attachment #2. The funding we request for 

the Florida and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails will continue acquisition underway by the Forest Service. The first tracts to help close gaps in the Florida Trail 

have been acquired with LWCF money provided in previous years. Necessary Optimal Location Planning and appraisal work have been completed and acquisition has 

begun in earnest along the Pacific Crest Trail. The requested funding for the Appalachian National Scenic Trail will help complete its protection in Tennessee, Georgia, and Virginia. 

The $2,500,000 requested for the Bureau of Land Management will help protect 

important cultural resources along the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic 

Trail in Arizona and along the Oregon National Historic Trail in Oregon. 

The National Trails System Act encourages states to assist in the conservation 

of the resources and development of the national scenic and historic trails. Wisconsin has committed more than $10 million to help conserve the resources of the 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail. With fiscal year 2000–2002 LWCF funding, matched 

more than 2:1 by State funds, Wisconsin has purchased 12 parcels and now has another 12 parcels under appraisal or option to purchase. The requested $4 Million 

Land and Water Conservation Fund grant to Wisconsin will continue this very successful Federal/State partnership for protecting land for the Ice Age Trail. 

The essential funding requests to support the trails are detailed in Attachment 

#2. 

PRIVATE SECTOR SUPPORT FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public agencies have 

been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the Trails System and the trail communities 

that sustain it by combining the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide a way 

to enlist private financial support for public projects, usually resulting in a greater 

than equal match of funds. 

The private trail organizations commitment to the success of these trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress’ support for the trails has grown. In 

2002 the trail organizations channeled 662,429 hours of documented volunteer labor 

valued at $10,631,985 to help sustain the national scenic and historic trails. This 

is a 6.5 percent increase over the volunteer labor reported for 2001. The organizations also applied private sector contributions of $6,850,214 to benefit the trails. 

These contributions are documented in Attachment #1.

ATTACHMENT 1.—CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2002 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM BY 

NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS 

Organization Volunteer hours 

Estimated value 

of volunteer 

labor 

Financial

contributions 

Appalachian Trail Conference .................................................................... 184,216 $2,956,667 $4,100,000

Continental Divide Trail Society ................................................................ 1 1,500 24,075 ........................

Continental Divide Trail Alliance ............................................................... 22,256 357,209 319,242

Florida Trail Association ............................................................................ 53,540 857,712 159,000

Ice Age Park & Trail Foundation ............................................................... 73,440 1,178,712 550,705

Iditarod National Historic Trail, Inc. .......................................................... 1 17,900 287,295 1 75,000

Heritage Trails/Amigos De Anza ................................................................ 422 6,773 ........................

Anza Trail Coalition of Arizona .................................................................. 3,068 49,241 ........................

Lewis & Clark Trail Heritage Foundation .................................................. 1 40,000 642,000 313,395

Mormon Trails Association ......................................................................... 7,956 127,694 1 20,068

Iowa Mormon Trails Association ................................................................ 1 750 12,038 1 1,000

Nebraska Mormon Trails Association ........................................................ 203 3,258 1,022

Natchez Trace Trail Conference ................................................................. 2,062 33,095 ........................

National Pony Express Association ............................................................ 33,168 532,346 215,472

Pony Express Trail Association .................................................................. 3,444 55,276 51,140

Nez Perce Trail Foundation ........................................................................ 1,457 23,385 5,244

North Country Trail Association ................................................................. 5,986 577,575 195,413

Old Spanish Trail Association ................................................................... 5,697 91,726 23,222
234

ATTACHMENT 1.—CONTRIBUTIONS MADE IN 2002 TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM BY 

NATIONAL SCENIC AND HISTORIC TRAIL ORGANIZATIONS—Continued

Organization Volunteer hours 

Estimated value 

of volunteer labor 

Financial

contributions 

Oregon-California Trails Association ......................................................... 72,725 1,167,236 264,553

Overmountain Victory Trail Association ..................................................... 6,005 96,380 29,138

Pacific Crest Trail Association .................................................................. 44,100 707,805 395,600

Potomac Trail Council ................................................................................ 1 4,800 77,040 1,700

Santa Fe Trail Association ......................................................................... 1 19,000 304,950 69,000

Trail of Tears Association .......................................................................... 28,816 462,497 60,300

Totals ............................................................................................ 662,429 10,631,985 6,850,214

1 Estimate. 
235

ATTACHMENT 2.—PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM 

Agency/Trail 

Fiscal year 2003

congressional

appropriation 

Fiscal year 2004

administration

request 

Fiscal year 2004 

partners request Project/programs possible with increased funding 

PARK SERVICE

Ala Kahakai ......................................................................... $181,000 $181,000 $181,000 Begin preparation of Comprehensive Management Plan for new trail; Appalachian ........................................................................ 1,041,000 1,044,000 1,044,000 Operations of NPS A.T. Park Office; $300,000 of the total supports volunteer-based trail maintenance and construction and land and resource management guided by ATC; Natchez Trace ...................................................................... 26,000 26,000 150,000 Planning & building new trail & bridges; backlog maintenance with NTTC & SCA; El Camino Real ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 100,000 Begin collaborative management of new trail with Bureau of Land Management; California ............................................................................. 200,000 200,000 351,000 Interpret more auto tour routes with CALTRANS; Enhance Four Trails GIS database; Ice Age ................................................................................ 498,000 501,000 1,001,000 Trail corridor planning; Coordinate land acquisition by agency partners and Trail maintenance 

and resource management by IAP&TF; Develop Trail interpretive plan; 

Juan Bautista de Anza ........................................................ 189,000 189,000 300,000 Coordination of Trail site protection, interpretation & development projects with local agencies 

& organizations; Outreach to schools and Latino communities; 

Lewis & Clark ...................................................................... 1,707,000 1,712,000 3,734,000 Planning, coordination & support for local Bicentennial projects and ‘‘Corps II’’; Mormon Pioneer ................................................................... 127,000 127,000 128,000 Enhance Four Trails GIS database; Interpret additional auto tour routes; North Country ...................................................................... 547,000 547,000 840,000 Advance Trail construction, Trail route protection and support for volunteers and partners 

through regional trail centers, greater technical assistance and route planning; 

Old Spanish ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 100,000 Collaborative administration with Bureau of Land Management; Oregon ................................................................................. 215,000 216,000 366,000 Update and upgrade Four Trails GIS database and mapping; Overmountain Victory .......................................................... 135,000 135,000 186,000 New route signs & interpretive exhibits; mapping Trail sites for protection inventory, and archaeology in Cherokee County, North Carolina; Pony Express ....................................................................... 180,000 181,000 281,000 Develop Interpretive Plan for wayside exhibits for Pony Express and California trails; Potomac Heritage ................................................................ 198,000 198,000 250,000 Assistance to local agencies & organizations for planning & educational projects; Santa Fe .............................................................................. 1 596,000 1 603,000 919,000 Cultural resource preservation, design & distribute interpretive media with partners; Selma to Montgomery ......................................................... 260,000 261,000 261,000 Comprehensive management plan developed and trail interpretation begun in collaboration 

with citizen support organizations & local agencies; 

Trail of Tears ....................................................................... 247,000 247,000 498,000 Preserve & interpret critical Trail sites & provide new visitor facilities with TOTA; NTS-Washington Office ....................................................... 217,000 218,000 275,000 Program coordination and special projects funding.

National Trails System .......................................... 6,594,000 6,605,000 10,965,000 Total National Trails System operations funding.

Challenge Cost Share ......................................................... 2 6,980,000 3 8,980,000 8,980,000 $5 M for Lewis & Clark; one-third of remaining $3.98 M for rest of National Trails System; Interagency GIS Project ....................................................... 4 1,000,000 .......................... 5 1,253,000 Development of GIS for National Trails;
236

ATTACHMENT 2.—PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM—Continued

Agency/Trail 

Fiscal year 2003

congressional

appropriation 

Fiscal year 2004

administration

request 

Fiscal year 2004 

partners request Project/programs possible with increased funding 

BLM

Iditarod Trail ....................................................................... 330,000 160,000 410,000 Coordination and support for collaborative management with other Federal agencies, Iditarod 

Trail organizations and State of Alaska; bridges and cabins; 

El Camino Real ................................................................... 330,000 380,000 380,000 Collaborative administration and management with National Park Service; Old Spanish ......................................................................... .......................... 100,000 100,000 Collaborative administration and management with National Park Service; Continental Divide ............................................................... 117,000 117,000 117,000 Marking 230 miles of CDT in Wyoming; Interagency management collaboration; Pacific Crest ........................................................................ 190,000 90,000 90,000 PCT maintenance in California; Interagency management collaboration; Juan Bautista de Anza ........................................................ 80,000 80,000 80,000 Interpretive exhibits for Anza Trail at Painted Rock, Arizona; California ............................................................................. 136,000 151,000 151,000 California Trail resource inventories in Wyoming and California; Lewis & Clark ...................................................................... 1,642,000 1,937,000 1,937,000 Lewis & Clark Bicentennial preparations in Idaho and Montana; Mormon Pioneer ................................................................... 94,000 94,000 94,000Nez Perce ............................................................................. 33,000 33,000 33,000 Lewis & Clark Bicentennial preparations in Idaho and Montana; Oregon ................................................................................. 124,000 184,000 184,000 Interagency management collaboration; Pony Express ....................................................................... 70,000 95,000 95,000 Archaeology at Little Sandy and Dry Sandy Pony Express Stations, Wyoming and marking 120 

miles of Pony Express Trail in Nevada;

National Trails System .......................................... 3,146,000 3,421,000 3,671,000 Total National Trails System operations funding.

Iditarod Trail ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... 385,000 Feasibility study for Iditarod Trail Interpretive/visitor Center; El Camino Real ................................................................... 172,000 .......................... .......................... Developing Comprehensive Management Plan with Park Service; Construction of: 

California Trail Interpretive Center—NV ................... 1,000,000 .......................... 1,000,000 Continued funding for construction of California National Historic Trail interpretive center in 

Elko, Nevada; 

Pacific Crest Trail ...................................................... 100,000 .......................... 100,000 Annual maintenance of sections of the Pacific Crest Trail on BLM land.
237

FOREST SERVICE

Continental Divide ............................................................... 655,000 .......................... 1,350,000 Continued support for full administrative responsibility and leadership for consistent interagency collaboration for each trail; support for consistent management with trail organization and local agency partners; trail brochures, signs, project planning etc.; Also 

$1,050,140 to plan 383 new miles of CDT; $200,000 to support work of full-time Trail administrator and $100,000 for Optimal Location Planning for PCT and $70,000 to increase Trail maintenance by volunteers coordinated by PCTA; $750,000 to continue collaborative work with Florida Trail Association to inventory 500 miles of the Florida Trail and continue development of Trail GIS; 

Florida ................................................................................. 556,000 .......................... 750,000Pacific Crest ........................................................................ 735,000 .......................... 620,000Nez Perce Trails .................................................................. 536,000 .......................... 350,000

Total ....................................................................... 6 2,482,000 1,000,000 3,070,000

Appalachian, North Country, Ice Age, Iditarod , California, 

Juan Bautista de Anza, Lewis & Clark, Oregon, Mormon Pioneer, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Santa Fe, Trail of Tears.

746,000 350,000 750,000 Improved trail maintenance, marking, interpretation, archaeological studies, historic site protection and trailhead facilities for trail segments in National Forests; $200,000 to address 

deferred maintenance, make improvements and provide liaison for collaborative management of the North Country Trail with National Park Service; 

Continental Divide Trail ...................................................... 994,000 .......................... 1,000,000 Trail construction projects along the Continental Divide Trail: 90 miles of new trail, 24 miles 

of trail reconstruction and 7 new Trailheads; 

Florida Trail ......................................................................... 497,000 .......................... 500,000 Trail construction projects in Eglin Air Force Base, Ocala National Forest, Big Cypress National 

Preserve and along the Choctawahatchee River; 

Pacific Crest Trail ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 865,000 Trail construction projects along the Pacific Crest Trail, including reconstruction of fire and 

storm damaged bridges and structures in California and Washington; Fabrication and installation of roadside interpretive signs at Trail highway crossings;

National Trails System .......................................... 4,719,000 1,350,000 6,185,000 Total: National Trails System funding.

Nat. Forest System Trail Maintenance ................................ 36,664,000 .......................... .......................... Trail maintenance throughout the National Forest System. Nat. Forest System Trail Construction ................................ 33,015,000 .......................... .......................... New trail construction and trail re-construction throughout the National Forest System. Nat. Forest System Capital Improvement & Maintenance—

Trails.

69,679,000 .......................... 100,000,000 Trail maintenance and new trail construction throughout the National Forest System.

LWCF FOR TRAILS

LWCF grant—FS Pacific Crest ........................................... 3,000,000 .......................... 5,000,000 USDA-Forest Service acquisition of lands in southern California, Oregon and southern Washington to preserve the scenic integrity of the Pacific Crest Trail. 
238

ATTACHMENT 2.—PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM REQUESTED FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM—Continued

Agency/Trail 

Fiscal year 2003

congressional

appropriation 

Fiscal year 2004

administration

request 

Fiscal year 2004 

partners request Project/programs possible with increased funding 

LWCF grant—FS Florida ..................................................... 3,000,000 .......................... 5,000,000 USDA-Forest Service acquisition of lands to protect 62 miles of threatened Florida Trail corridor and connect trail segments across private land between National Forests, St. Marks 

Wildlife Refuge & Eglin Air Base and in central Florida. 

LWCF grant—FS Appalachian ............................................ 7,600,000 .......................... 8,300,000 The total supports three USDA-Forest Service acquisition projects in the Georgia Mountains, 

Tennessee Mountains, and Virginia Mountains. Of that total, about $3 million would acquire Appalachian Trail-related tracts; the balance would acquire other significant inholdings within the affected forests. 

LWCF grant Ice Age—Wisconsin 7 ...................................... 2,000,000 .......................... 4,000,000 Assistance provided to State of Wisconsin to protect threatened Ice Age Trail corridor and connect trail segments across private land in Dane, Chippewa, Columbia, Marathon, Polk, Portage, Walworth, Washington, Waupaca and Waushara Counties. NPS will purchase one interpretive site for the Ice Age Trail. LWCF grant—NPS North Country—WI, MI 8 ....................... .......................... .......................... 1,500,000 Assistance provided to States of Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio to acquire critical links in the 

North Country Trail; 

LWCF grant—BLM Pacific Crest ........................................ .......................... .......................... 1,000,000 BLM acquisition of land along the Pacific Crest Trail in California. LWCF grant—BLM Oregon .................................................. .......................... 2,000,000 2,000,000 BLM acquisition of land along the Sandy River and the Snake River Rim in Oregon. LWCF grant—BLM Juan Bautista de Anza ........................ 800,000 500,000 500,000 BLM acquisition of land at Sears Point Area of Critical Concern along the Juan Bautista de 

Anza Trail in Arizona.

Total ....................................................................... 16,400,000 2,500,000 27,300,000

1 Includes $261,000 for operations of Santa Fe Park Service office, not related to the Santa Fe Trail. 2 Includes $5 million earmarked for Lewis & Clark Bicentennial projects. One-third of the remaining funds (about $664,000 of $1.987 million) are earmarked for National Trails System projects. 3 Administration request does not allocate any funds for the National Trails System. The Congressional earmark is needed to accomplish this. 4 Congress tells NPS to report on progress of GIS development and future funding needed by January 31, 2001 and to request increased GIS funding for fiscal year 2002. 5 Funding request reflects budget detailed in Park Service GIS report delivered to Congress in January 2002. 6 Appropriation includes: $2.5 million for administration of the Continental Divide, Florida, and Pacific Crest National Scenic Trails and the Nez Perce National Historic Trail, funding for full-time administrators for each trail and land acquisition teams for the Florida and Pacific Crest Trails. 7 This would be a grant to the State of Wisconsin to be matched at least 1:1. 8 These would be grants to the States of Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio to be matched at least 1:1. 
239

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION

This statement is to share with the Subcommittee the views of the National 

Recreation and Park Association on fiscal year 2004 appropriations for selected programs within its jurisdiction. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on programs administered principally by the National Park Service. 

We recommend the following: 

—Not less than $200,000,000 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for 

state assistance, and additional funds to meet the highest land conservation priorities of eligible federal land systems. Funds should be allocated to the states 

as authorized by current law. 

—$50,000,000 to address the most distressed urban recreation resource conditions 

and deficiencies identified and aided through the Urban Park and Recreation 

Recovery Program. 

—Sufficient funds to enable the National Park Service, through Federal Lands to 

Parks, Rivers, Trails, and Conservation (RTC) and other programs to collaborate with state and local recreation and park agencies and others on such matters as conservation and use of excess surplus federal real property and rivers 

and trails. 

—Sufficient funds to support sustainable public recreation use of national forests, 

parks, refuges, and public lands. 

These recommendations, if enacted, will help address the national imperative to 

improve physical and mental health, sustain the environment, and stimulate economic growth. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND STATE ASSISTANCE

We commend the Subcommittee’s actions to build and sustain fiscal partnerships 

with state and local recreation and park authorities. We share with many legislators 

and advocates the disappointment that the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations 

act ultimately resulted in a reduction of some $80 million in LWCF state assistance 

and the urban park programs. Our request for fiscal year 2004 equals the Administration’s LWCF state assistance request for fiscal year 2003—$200,000,000—absent 

restrictions that would have been imposed by the ‘‘Cooperative Conservation Initiative.’’

We also commend the President for his commitment to appropriations from the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund. However, we urge the Administration in future 

budgets to more accurately affect actual public needs and the basic authority of the 

LWCF act. 

Recent (2000–2002) requests for LWCF assistance exceed $3.26 billion, according 

to applications submitted to state officials. This, we believe, is a very conservative 

estimate of need. In general, project priorities reflect a nationwide demand to increase the recreation capacity of public systems. 

We remain deeply concerned that the Administration’s budget proposes access to 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund for a number of programs not presently authorized to do so. The LWCF act, while broad in its application and diversity of 

projects, is very specific in its policy objectives—provision of recreational opportunities to improve public health and conservation of lands and waters for public recreation. If the Subcommittee in its wisdom accepts the Administration’s interpretation 

of LWCF authority, then it should specifically stipulate that state and local public 

recreation and park entities are fully eligible to access these programs, and that assisted resources be publicly accessible for appropriate forms of recreation. 

Non-federal recreation and park resources are fundamentally essential to quality 

recreation experiences for all people. Collectively, these systems—with strong citizen 

support and executive and management expertise—provide the majority of public 

recreation destinations, services, and visitor experiences. While diverse and widespread, until all people have appropriate access to recreation and parks our collective missions will remain unfinished. Beyond our fiscal year 2004 recommendation, 

we urge the Subcommittee to move quickly toward annual full funding of the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund. 

URBAN PARK AND RECREATION RECOVERY PROGRAM

The Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program recognizes the recreation values associated with conservation of the built environment. We believe these values 

are of no less importance than conservation of other recreation spaces and places 

of high ecological and aesthetic value. Demand for Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program assistance remains high. This interest is reflected in both the number of requests for assistance and the quality and objectives of projects. While no 
240

fiscal year 2003 funds were appropriated, the record of interest expressed in previous fiscal years is revealing. For example, in fiscal year 2000 ($2 million available) 

only 14 projects were selected for assistance. In fiscal year 2001 187 local jurisdictions applied ($28.8 million available), and 95 projects were selected. Nearly 200 

communities requested 2002 funds, and only 71 were assisted with available funds. 

UPARR projects emphasize the national importance of bringing quality recreation 

resources and services to children and youth in more economically distressed cities 

and neighborhoods. Our request for increased investment is based in part on the 

ultimate loss of $30 million included in the fiscal year 2003 House-passed bill. 

Despite a degree of fiscal stress impacting many state and local governments as 

a direct or indirect result of terrorist activities, ‘‘homeland security’’ costs, or economic conditions there is no information that suggests that our recommended 

LWCF assistance minimum of $200 million and $50 million for urban parks will not 

be fully utilized within allowable time frames. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTERGOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES

Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program 

We recommend $15,000,000 for the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance 

Program administered by the National Park Service. This amount is based in part 

on emerging interest in partnerships and resource conservation strategies that often 

result in less than fee title actions. The RTCA program illustrates the critical importance and federal contribution to public/private partnerships for conservation of natural and cultural resources, and public access for recreation. The program provides 

technical assistance to local governments, citizen and community organizations, and 

state agencies to consider recreation and conservation strategies. The results include 

restoration of rivers, planning and development of trails, conservation of open space 

and greenways, among other types of projects. 

Our proposed funding will allow the NPS RTCA program to assign staff resources 

to initiatives in each state. It will leverage additional funds and bring projects to 

completion earlier than might otherwise be possible. Our request also recognizes 

that requests for assistance outpace program capacity by about 4 to 1. That is, the 

National Park Service annually receives about 400 requests for assistance, but presently has the capacity to start about 100. Early federal technical support is critical 

to the long-term success of local, often citizen-driven initiatives. NPS anticipated 

that its involvement will be relatively short term—1 to 2 years—and it does not 

measure its contribution to a project until at least 5 years after providing technical 

assistance. This ‘‘delayed evaluation’’ approach enables NPS to more effectively assess the outcomes arising from early organization and technical support. We urge 

the Subcommittee to resist so called ‘‘hard earmarks’’ and instead rely on the relative quality of proposals and conservation priorities to determine support. 

Federal Lands to Parks Program 

We recommend an appropriation of at least $1 million to support the Federal 

Lands to Parks program administered by the National Park Service. Our recommendation will address what we believe to be a long-standing budget shortfall 

relative to program demands. The FLP program is an exemplary partnership. It 

guides and assists in the conversion of surplus federal properties to state and local 

governments for public recreation and park use. Unfortunately, the program was 

downsized in the early 1980s, and funding has remained essentially flat. Concurrently, property potentially available for state and local parks and demand for federal assistance has increased beyond the capacity of program staff. A large part of 

this demand is the result of the closure of military bases between 1988 and 1995. 

In fiscal year 2002, FLP program staff assisted in the transfer of twenty-four properties valued at nearly $30 million. Today, there is a backlog of some sixty pending 

transfers, mostly resulting from the closure of military installations. 

Local and state park systems are critical to the American people and others who 

work and reside among us. With sufficient funds, more recreation resources could 

become accessible. These resources address the diverse public interests and our collective need for quality recreation and associated services for children of working 

parents. They host programs that serve millions of nutritious breakfasts, lunches, 

snacks, and suppers to needy children, and help reduce crime and delinquency, especially after school hours. Public recreation and park mangers and sites recognize 

that at any given time perhaps 50 million people have a disability, and attempt to 

accommodate their desire for recreation. 

State and local agencies contribute importantly to plant and wildlife diversity. Nationwide, over 5,000 local park systems, for example, contain about 9 million acres. 

Hundreds of local systems have more than 5,000 acres, with many systems in excess 
241

of 15,000 acres. An estimated 80 to 85 percent of larger systems are typically undeveloped and thus contribute to an array of conservation outcomes. Larger systems 

also provide opportunities for environmental awareness and experiential education. 

The National Recreation and Park Association appreciates the opportunity to comment. NRPA public policy director, Barry Tindall (202–887–0290) is available to provide additional perspectives and to respond to questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS, RECREATION AND

HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the New York 

State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. My purpose in presenting this testimony is to support the State Side of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and to respectfully request an appropriation of $160 Million for 

fiscal year 2004. In addition, I ask that you support the Urban Parks and Recreational Recovery Program (UPARR), and I would resectfully request that this program be restored, and funded in the amount of $50 Million for fiscal year 2004. 

As you know, your predecessors in Congress conceived a simple, but powerfully 

effective idea in 1964: a pay-as-you-go program that takes a small portion of the fees 

generated from oil & gas drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf, the portion designated for state side funding that is to support the creation, development, and enhancement of a wide variety of community parks and recreational resources. 

Those bodies promised the American people that, where on the one hand we are 

generating billions of dollars in revenue by the depletion of one non-renewable resource, we would invest in the environment by dedicating a small portion of those 

funds to the acquisition, preservation and development of recreational resources in 

states and communities across America. 

It is a program that works. From 1965 to 1995, NYS Parks, as administrator for 

LWCF, directed 58 percent of the NYS allocation of some $200 million to Municipal 

Park acquisition and development projects, (33 percent to cities, 5 percent to counties, 14.5 to towns, 4.5 percent to villages). Since its inception, this program has resulted in over 1,100 projects undertaken throughout New York State, and LWCF 

projects exist in virtually every county in the state. These projects have built and 

illuminated baseball and soccer fields, hiking trails and camping facilities, and provided for open spaces for our youth, adults and seniors. 

Not all of our citizens realize that the State side of LWCF touches the lives of 

every one of our residents and constituents. 

Because grants may not exceed 50 percent of the total project costs, the program 

is enormously successful in leveraging these federal dollars, literally allowing communities to create parks and recreational opportunities where none would otherwise 

exist. These projects are so important because they provide close-to-home opportunities for Americans to exercise, recreate, and simply get outdoors and play with their 

children, and the development of recreational facilities creates jobs. 

From 1994 through 1999 stateside LWCF received no funding, and the entire program simply disappeared. As a result of widespread support from all around the 

country, stateside LWCF was restored by the 106th Congress for fiscal year 2000, 

with an appropriation of $40 Million. Funding gradually increased through fiscal 

year 2002, until the program suffered substantial cuts in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Budget Resolution. 

As Commissioner for the New York State Agency responsible for the administration of the program, I can report that since the year 2000 alone, approximately 60 

projects have been funded throughout the state, from eastern Long Island to the Niagara Frontier, to New York City, and north to the Thousand Islands. These include 

30 municipal projects in 22 counties, and 26 state park projects in communities 

throughout every region of New York State. We have taken great care to balance 

our use of these funds so that they benefit all residents of our state. I thank the 

members of this committee for that support, and for keeping the vision behind 

LWCF alive. 

However, I must also report that even in fiscal year 2002, the best year for LWCF 

funding thus far in my tenure, there were some 170 project applications that could 

not be funded, representing some $30 million in unmet needs. Precisely because this 

program reaches all Americans where we live, the demand for recreational facilities 

close to home continues to grow, and I must ask, on behalf of your constituents, that 

you prevent the deterioration of one of the most successful and cost-effective domestic programs at this critical time. 

For fiscal year 2004 please support the state side LWCF by providing the $160 

million appropriation to this program that is contained in the Administration’s 
242

budget request, thereby preserving the effectiveness of this program for this generation of Americans, who were no less the recipients of the promise made by your 

predecessors than their forbears. 

The funding source for this program, fees generated from exploration on the Outer 

Continental Shelf remains intact. The financial commitment necessary to keep state 

side LWCF intact is a small percentage of those fees realized. And yet, the cost in 

lost opportunities will be great indeed, if this Congress fails to preserve the program 

at the $160 million figure. 

The other program that I would like to add my support to today is the Urban 

Parks and Recreation Recovery Program, or UPARR. 

UPARR is another program that seeks to improve recreational facilities in neighborhoods throughout the country, with a special focus on underserved communities. 

Similarly effective by the use of leveraged matching grants, this program helps 

urban communities rehabilitate existing but deteriorating facilities. This program 

will suffer greatly this year by an elimination of funding. I strongly urge you to restore this program by providing $50 million in funding for fiscal year 2004. 

By preserving these two complimentary programs, we can live up to the promises 

made, and the commitment to our communities, our families, our neighborhoods, 

and our children. Thank you for the opportunity to present my views as New York 

State Parks Commissioner on a program that I know works for New Yorkers, and 

for all Americans. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PRESERVATION ACTION

Between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2003, funding for Historic Preservation 

Fund has been cut by 28 percent with the overall appropriation dropping from $94 

million to just $67 million. President Bush’s fiscal year 2004 budget proposes level 

funding for the program. Preservation Action and its national membership of citizens dedicated to historic preservation in their communities, respectfully requests 

that funding be restored to the Historic Preservation Fund. We request $50 million 

for State Historic Preservation Offices; $10 million for Tribal Historic Preservation 

Offices; $30 million for Save America’s Treasures Grants; and $10 million to assist 

states to complete and digitize their historic site surveys—totaling $100 million. 

The national historic preservation program is unique among federal initiatives because it does not rely on acquisition or federal intervention to achieve its objective: 

to discover, celebrate and protect America’s rich architectural heritage. Rather, it 

gives property owners and local citizens the tools they need to restore and protect 

heritage resources for the benefit of the entire community. In effect, the National 

Historic Preservation Act creates an extremely effective partnership between the 

federal government, States, Tribes and local governments as a way to deliver these 

tools to citizens, property owners and developers. This partnership is underwritten 

by the Historic Preservation Fund and matched by the State Historic Preservation 

Officers, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and Certified Local Governments. We 

ask that the federal government not renege on its part of the bargain by under 

funding its financial commitment to this important program. 

DISCOVER

The number one priority of the national historic preservation program at its inception was to survey and document the immensely rich architectural and archaeological resources across this nation, from the smallest town to the largest city. The 

survey was intended to serve as the basis of federal, state, tribal, and local protection efforts. It was also envisioned as a way to expedite the 106 review process, 

mandated by federal law. Under funding has dramatically reduced the number and 

scope of survey work. Indeed, most states have been forced to turn their attention 

to ‘‘demand’’ responsibilities at the expense of survey work. Lack of adequate surveys actually costs process. If Congress had provided sufficient funding for the Historic Preservation Fund over the past 15 years, historic site inventories would be 

complete. Federal agency planners could access historic site information including 

descriptions and photographs from the Internet on their desktop computers and proceed with project planning in an atmosphere of knowledge and forethought. Increased funding can help States complete their survey work to the benefit of their 

historic resources and federal agency planners. 

CELEBRATE

Importantly, survey and subsequent nomination and listing on the National Register were intended to offer a way to celebrate and promote a community’s heritage 
243

resources boosting pride, stimulating economic investment and inviting heritage 

tourism. Unfortunately, it is estimated that cuts to State Historic Preservation Offices between 2001 and 2003 have already reduced annual National Register nominations by some 15,000 properties. That means that hundreds of communities are 

unable to take advantage of restoration grants, commercial rehabilitation tax credits, and heritage tourism plans that could help them save and sustain their historic 

resources. 

PROTECT

From our perspective, there is no component of the program that better illustrates 

the power of the federal-State partnership than the Historic Rehabilitation Tax 

Credit. This tax incentive program leveraged more than $3.27 billion in private investment for historic resources in 2002 and created 13,886 housing units, 5,673 of 

them for low to moderate income individuals. On the ground these numbers translate into comfortable high-quality places for people of average means to live. They 

mean that boarded up and vacant buildings are restored and re-opened as viable 

business enterprises and are put back on the tax rolls for the benefit of the entire 

community. They mean that the federal government, working with its partners, 

quadrupled its investment, put people to work, and repaired the fabric of our neighborhoods. The tax act program carries out the spirit of the National Historic Preservation Act in concrete ways. 

For this program to work, owners and developers must be able to turn to State 

Historic Preservation Officers for National Register nominations, for advice on 

project design and for timely review and certification. Unfortunately, State Offices 

have been forced to cut back on staff, slowing tax act reviews and seriously curtailing their ability to partner with developers to save historic resources. 

Similarly, when the Historic Preservation Fund appropriation allows, State Offices offer grants to help restore National Register properties. These grants are often 

the catalyst for additional public and private investment. When restoration grants 

are not available, historic buildings are allowed to deteriorate. For the first time 

since the 1970’s increased funding in fiscal year 2001 allowed substantial disbursement of restoration grants, it also gave State Offices the opportunity to invest in 

long overdue infrastructure improvements (e.g., geographic information system upgrades). These investments totaled nearly $11 million in fiscal year 2001. However, 

the cuts in fiscal year 2002 reduced that investment to an estimated $3 million and 

with the cuts in 2003 many states simply were unable to extend restoration and 

project grants leaving untold thousands of projects without the seed money they 

need to ensure there success. 

CONCLUSION

We are a nation at war, facing a new and uncertain era. Our citizens are turning 

to their neighborhoods, town centers and heritage resources as a source of comfort. 

In small towns and big, rural, urban and suburban areas, our history—embodied 

in the built environment—gives context and meaning to the American experience. 

We must find a way, even in difficult fiscal times, to discover, celebrate and protect 

our heritage and to build a thriving future that does not compromise our historic 

resources. Now, more than ever, historic preservation, as defined and guided by the 

National Historic Preservation Act, must be an integral part of how we do business 

in all our communities. This can not happen without adequate funding for the Historic Preservation Fund. Please approve funding for the Historic Preservation Fund 

at $100 million for fiscal year 2004. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN GEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE

Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geological Institute’s perspective on fiscal year 2004 appropriations for geoscience programs within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. The president’s budget requests significant cuts in the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS). If enacted, these reductions would hamper the Survey’s 

ability to carry out its important missions to ensure adequate natural resources, 

monitor environmental conditions and reduce the nation’s vulnerability to natural 

hazards. Specifically, we ask the subcommittee to restore funds to the USGS Mineral Resources, Advanced National Seismic System, National Cooperative Geologic 

Mapping, and Toxic Substances Hydrology programs. In addition, the president’s request would decimate the Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy oil and 

natural gas research programs, and we ask for restoration of those to their fiscal 

year 2002 levels. 
244

Geoscience activities are also found in a number of other agencies within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction. We ask the subcommittee to provide adequate funds for 

geoscience activities in the Minerals Management Service (MMS) Environmental 

Studies Program, the National Park Service Geologic Resources Division and the 

U.S. Forest Service Minerals and Geology Management Program, and to fully fund 

scientific research programs at the Smithsonian Institution. MMS does important 

work in energy resource assessment and collection of geoscience data. Geoscience 

programs within the land management agencies provide a scientific basis for landuse decisions, a role that they share with the USGS. The Smithsonian’s National 

Museum of Natural History plays a dual role in communicating the excitement of 

the geosciences and enhancing knowledge through research and preservation of geoscience collections. 

AGI is a nonprofit federation of 40 geoscientific and professional associations that 

represent more than 100,000 geologists, geophysicists, and other earth scientists. 

The institute serves as a voice for shared interests in our profession, plays a major 

role in strengthening geoscience education, and strives to increase public awareness 

of the vital role that the geosciences play in society’s use of resources and interaction with the environment. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

For the third year in a row, the USGS faces substantial cuts in the administration’s request. AGI thanks the subcommittee for its record of restoring cuts and recognizing the Survey’s broad value to the nation. This year, we urge the subcommittee to not only put back funds cut in the president’s request but also to provide enough additional support to stop the ongoing erosion of the Survey’s ability 

to carry out its programs due to the rising costs of doing business. Uncontrollable 

expenses, such as cost-of-living increases for salaries, should not cut into the funds 

available to fulfill the agency’s mission. 

AGI has recently signed on as a charter member of the USGS Coalition, a newly 

formed alliance of organizations united by a commitment to the continued vitality 

of the unique combination of biological, geological, hydrological and mapping programs of the U.S. Geological Survey. The Coalition supports increased federal investment in USGS programs that underpin responsible natural resource stewardship, improve resilience to natural and human-induced hazards, and contribute to 

the long-term health, security and prosperity of the nation. 

Virtually every American citizen and every federal, state, and local agency benefits either directly or indirectly from USGS products and services. As was made 

clear by the recent National Research Council report Future Roles and Opportunities for the U.S. Geological Survey, the USGS’s value to the nation goes well beyond 

the Department of the Interior’s stewardship mission for public lands. USGS information and expertise address a wide range of important problems facing this nation: 

earthquakes and floods, global environmental change, water availability, waste disposal, and availability of energy and mineral resources. Some of the most important 

activities of the Survey serve the entire nation and often are most applicable to 

those non-federal lands where the nation’s citizens reside. At the same time, AGI 

recognizes that the Survey does have a responsibility to provide scientific support 

for its sister land management agencies at Interior, an important mission that 

needs to be well executed if land management decisions are to be made with the 

best available scientific information. It is imperative that both these missions be 

recognized and valued within the Department and the White House. AGI asks the 

subcommittee to continue its efforts to help the administration better understand 

the Survey’s value to the nation as a whole 

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program.—AGI urges the subcommittee 

to reject the administration’s requested cuts to the National Cooperative Geologic 

Mapping Program and to fund this important program at the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. This important partnership between the USGS, state geological surveys, and universities provides the nation with fundamental data for addressing 

natural hazard mitigation, environmental remediation, land-use planning, and resource development. 

Mineral Resources Program.—This highly regarded research program is the nation’s premier credible source for regional, national and global mineral resource and 

mineral environmental assessments, statistics and research critical for sound economic, mineral-supply, land-use and environmental analysis, planning and decision 

making. AGI urges the subcommittee to reject the administration’s requested cuts 

to this program and to fund it at the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level. If additional funds are available to grow this program, we ask the subcommittee to consider the Mineral Education and Research initiative that would establish an exter-
245

nal grant program to support university-based applied mineral deposits research 

and training in mineral resource issues. Such a program has been recommended by 

the National Research Council as a means of improving cooperation between the 

minerals industry, universities and government, and of arresting the decline in geoscience faculty research expertise in minerals geology. 

Advanced National Seismic System.—A key role for the USGS is providing the research, monitoring, and assessment that are critically needed to better prepare for 

and respond to natural hazards. When a massive quake struck Alaska in December, 

a major economic and environmental disaster was averted because the Trans Alaska 

Pipeline System did not rupture where it crossed the fault. The pipeline’s resilience, 

despite the 14 feet of ground movement, was due to stringent design specifications 

based on USGS geologic studies three decades ago. To ensure future successes in 

hazard identification and mitigation, the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Authorization Act of 1999 called for a significant federal investment in expansion and modernization of existing seismic networks and for development of ANSS—a nationwide 

network of shaking measurement systems centered on urban areas. ANSS can provide real-time earthquake information to emergency responders as well as building 

and ground shaking data for engineers and scientists seeking to understand earthquake processes. AGI urges the subcommittee to reject the administration’s requested cuts to this program and to fund it at the fiscal year 2003 appropriated 

level. If additional funds are available, this program should grow toward its authorized levels of $35 million. 

Hydrology Programs.—Although the administration has abandoned its fiscal year 

2003 proposal to transfer the Toxic Substances Hydrology program to the National 

Science Foundation, it is still requesting a significant cut. The Toxics program supports targeted, long-term research on water resource contamination in both surface 

and groundwater environments. Such problem-specific research in this area is highly appropriate for USGS. The president’s request also calls for the termination of 

the Water Resources Research Institutes. AGI strongly encourages the subcommittee to oppose these reductions and to fully support these programs. AGI is 

pleased that the administration has requested full funding for the National Water 

Quality Assessment and National Streamflow Information programs, both of which 

make important contributions to the nation. 

Homeland Security.—Another troubling aspect of the president’s request that is 

not apparent from the budget documents is the lack of funding for the USGS activities in support of homeland security and the war on terrorism overseas. All four disciplines within the Survey have made and continue to make significant contributions to these efforts, but the fiscal year 2004 request does not provide any direct 

funding. Instead, those costs must be absorbed in addition to the proposed cuts. AGI 

encourages the subcommittee to recognize the Survey’s important role in homeland 

security and ensure adequate support for its newfound responsibilities. 

DOE FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

AGI is very concerned by the significant reductions in the President’s budget request to the Oil Technology R&D and Natural Gas R&D programs. The proposed 

65 percent cut to oil research and 43 percent to natural gas research would decimate 

these programs. The cuts to upstream exploration and production research are even 

more drastic, reaching 96 percent in the case of upstream oil research. The research 

dollars spent by these programs go largely to universities, state geological surveys 

and research consortia to address critical issues like enhanced recovery from known 

fields and unconventional sources that are the future of natural gas supply. This 

money does not go into corporate coffers, but it helps American businesses stay in 

business by giving them a technological edge over their foreign competitors. AGI 

strongly encourages the subcommittee to restore these funds and bring these programs back to at least fiscal year 2002 levels. 

Research funded by DOE leads to new technologies that improve the efficiency 

and productivity of the domestic energy industry. Continued research on fossil energy is critical to America’s future and should be a key component of any national 

energy strategy. The societal benefits of fossil energy R&D extend to such areas as 

economic and national security, job creation, capital investment, and reduction of 

the trade deficit. The nation will remain dependent on petroleum as its principal 

transportation fuel for the foreseeable future and natural gas is growing in importance. It is critical that domestic production not be allowed to prematurely decline 

at a time when tremendous advances are being made in improving the technology 

with which these resources are extracted. The recent spike in both oil and natural 

gas prices is a reminder of the need to retain a vibrant domestic industry in the 
246

face of uncertain sources overseas. Technological advances are key to maintaining 

our resource base and ensuring this country’s future energy security. 

The federal investment in energy R&D is particularly important when it comes 

to longer-range research with broad benefits. In today’s competitive markets, the 

private sector focuses dwindling research dollars on shorter-term results in highly 

applied areas such as technical services. In this context, DOE’s support of fossil energy research is very significant both in magnitude and impact compared to that 

done in the private sector. Without it, we risk losing our technological edge with 

this global commodity. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

This venerable institution was established for ‘‘the increase and diffusion of 

knowledge.’’ Those dual charges require that the Smithsonian not only welcome visitors to its museums but also produce new knowledge through scientific research. 

Earlier this year, a specially appointed science commission released a report outlining the role of research within the Smithsonian. The report noted that funding 

erosion has placed the institution’s world-class research facilities and researchers in 

poor financial standing. The National Research Council has released a report with 

similar findings. The message, however, does not appear to have had a significant 

impact on the president’s fiscal year 2004 request, which calls for a 6 percent cut 

in research funding. AGI asks the subcommittee to embrace the findings of these 

reports and build up Smithsonian research. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The national parks are very important to the geoscience community as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic splendor of our country and offer unparalleled opportunities for both geoscientific research and education of our fellow citizens. The National Park Services’s Geologic Resources Division was established in 

1995 to provide park managers with geologic expertise. Working in conjunction with 

USGS and other partners, the division helps ensure that geoscientists are becoming 

part of an integrated approach to science-based resource management in parks. AGI 

asks the subcommittee to fully support the president’s requested increase for the 

Natural Resources Challenge. AGI would like to see additional support for the Volunteer in the Park program and its associated partnerships as well as additional 

geological staff positions to adequately address the geologic resources in the national 

parks. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee. If 

you would like any additional information for the record, please contact me at 703–

379–2480, ext. 228 voice, 703–379–7563 fax, applegate@agiweb.org, or 4220 King 

Street, Alexandria VA 22302–1502. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY

The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single life science organization in the world, comprised of more than 40,000 members, appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 2004 budget of $896 million for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The ASM represents scientists who 

work in academic, medical, governmental and industrial institutions worldwide and 

are involved in research to improve human health and the environment. 

The USGS is a world leader in the natural sciences and serves the nation by furthering our understanding of the Earth and its ecosystems. Through the management of water, biological, energy, and mineral resources, USGS research is providing novel solutions to pressing issues in the geological, hydrological, geographical, 

and biological processes. USGS’s ability to carry out large scale, multi-disciplinary 

studies on a national scale are critical to advancing this knowledge. Through its 

long-term monitoring and assessment programs of the nation’s natural resources, 

the USGS provides the impartial science that federal, state and local governments 

need in order to respond to changing environmental conditions. 

The USGS’s environmental monitoring capabilities also make it the lead science 

provider for accessing information and facts necessary for resolving complex natural 

science problems across the nation and around the world. For instance, the USGS 

is collaborating with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, in order to better understand the west Nile Virus (WNV) 

and its effects on humans and animals. This type of collaboration relies on USGS’s 

unique, nation-spanning monitoring systems that allow the USGS to track and 

evaluate disease-causing vectors in an effort to protect human and animal health. 
247

The USGS is also co-sponsoring with the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation research on the ecological changes that affect infectious 

diseases such as biodiversity loss, habitat transformation, environmental contamination, and climate change. This type of research can only be accomplished with 

USGS’s extensive environmental monitoring data and its expertise in analyzing 

complex environmental phenomena. 

The ASM is concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request proposes cuts that 

will severely restrict the USGS’s ability to provide scientific support for the Department of Interior and other agency research needs. The proposed cuts result in a decrease of $30 million for the USGS, or 3 percent, to $895 million for fiscal year 2004. 

Within the USGS budget, the Biological Resources Division (BRD) is essentially 

level funded at $168 million; the Water Resources Division is cut by 5 percent to 

$200 million and the Geologic Division is cut by 5 percent to $222 million. The ASM 

would like to submit the following comments and recommendations for adequate 

funding levels for research in the Water Resources Division and the BRD for fiscal 

year 2004. 

NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM

Since 1991, USGS scientists with the National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) have been collecting and analyzing data and information on more 

than 50 major river basins and aquifers across the nation. Its efforts focus on longterm, independent water quality research that is otherwise unavailable. NWQAP is 

made-up of 42 sites nationwide, which provide quantitative information on: (1) longterm trends in concentrations of nutrients, pesticides, and sediment that enter the 

water system; (2) regional source areas of contaminants; and (3) the effects of population and land use on the concentrations of contaminants. Through NWQAP, the 

USGS is able to leverage its nation-spanning environmental monitoring facilities to 

provide local government, resource managers and industry the means to protect 

drinking water and water ecosystems. NWQAP other partners for responding to 

local, state, regional, and national efforts to protect, improve, and manage water resources. The Administration’s budget proposes a $64 million budget for the NWQAP, a 10 

percent increase over fiscal year 2003, but level with fiscal year 2002.—This level of 

funding will allow the program to continue microbial sampling initiatives, which 

were singled out by the National Academy of Science-National Research Council’s 

(NRC) Water Science and Technology Board (1999) as a priority. 

The ASM applauds USGS’s leadership in addressing existing and future water 

quality needs through multidisciplinary research teams. The ASM urges Congress 

to support this critical program that plays such an important role in public health 

and safeguarding our water supply from unexpected biological hazards. 

TOXIC SUBSTANCES HYDROLOGY PROGRAM

The ASM is pleased to see the Administration has supported this program in its 

fiscal year 2004 budget proposal.—The ASM recommends that Congress meet or ex- ceed the Administration’s funding of $11 million. The Toxics program is a major resource in the nation’s effort to identify harmful pharmaceuticals, hormones, and 

other organic wastewater contaminates in the water system. The ASM supports the 

focus and mission of this program and its efforts to combat increasing levels of toxic 

substances and water-borne pathogens in our drinking water supplies. 

The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program (Toxics) is conducting long-term research to improve our understanding of the behavior of contaminants in the nation’s 

ground and surface waters. The Toxics program is also an essential partner in the 

water-quality monitoring and assessment programs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the 

Department of Energy, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and other DOI agencies. In 2004, the program will focus on identifying new contaminants (e.g., hormones, animal-based pharmaceuticals), and developing the analytical methods needed to protect the integrity of our water resources, one of the most important issues 

of the 21st century. For instance, the Toxics program is involved in research to identify the factors that control where and when mercury accumulates to toxic levels in 

the food chain. This research is an important component in restoration efforts of the 

Florida Everglades ecosystem. 

STATE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH INSTITUTE PROGRAM

The ASM requests that Congress continue to fund this program despite the Administration’s plan to eliminate it in fiscal year 2004. The funding level for the program in fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 was $6 million. Therefore, the ASM 
248

highly recommends that the Subcommittee allocate the necessary funds (at least $6 

million) to maintain program viability. The Water Resources Research Act of 1984 

established the State Water Resources Research Institute Program (SWRRIP) to coordinate State and federal research on water quality and water supply problems. 

This program is also one of the federal government’s principal mechanisms for training the next-generation of water scientists and engineers. For example, in 2002, the 

program requested funding (USGS and University of Arizona scientists) to examine 

the impact of agricultural chemicals as a major non-point source of arsenic, by monitoring the microbial processes and microorganisms responsible for the conversions 

of arsenic compounds. Such water quality research is essential if the toxicity of agriculturally based arsenic is to be determined and plans for amelioration developed. 

WILDLIFE DISEASE INITIATIVE

The Wildlife Disease Initiative (WDI) is currently an unfunded program within 

the BRD. The USGS anticipates the cost of the program in its first year, which 

would be fiscal year 2004, to be $10 million. The ASM supports this level of funding 

for the WDI. The WDI would focus research on the recent emergence of major diseases affecting wildlife, such as, the West Nile virus (WNV), Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), bovine Tuberculosis (TB), and the potential introduction of Foot and 

Mouth Disease (FMD). While several of these diseases (TB, CWD, and FMD) can 

have a devastating effect on domestic animals, their potential impact upon human 

health is less understood. However, it should be noted that the agent of bovine Tuberculosis can cause TB in humans. The WDI would allow the USGS to assist the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

in bridging this knowledge gap. Such a partnership would provide the critical wildlife expertise necessary for studying the effects of these emerging diseases on wildlife; improve our understanding of wildlife’s role as reservoirs; and improve our ability to prevent and control outbreaks. 

No other agency has the capabilities or expertise to address disease detection, control and prevention in wildlife. Therefore, the ASM fully supports an integrative, 

inter-agency program that combines animal and human health as elements of public 

health. Furthermore, the ASM urges the Subcommittee to consider the importance 

of tracking and responding to wildlife diseases, such as, WNV that can move freely 

between animal host and humans. 

CONCLUSION

Interactions between the environment, its biota and people are highly complex 

and solutions require integrative, multidisciplinary approaches and an adequately 

funded and staffed USGS. The ASM encourages Congress to maintain its commitment to U.S. Geological Survey research programs, which are vital to continued discovery of geological, hydrological, geographical, and biological processes that are so 

important to the well being of the environment and protecting public health. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GROUND WATER PROTECTION COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Tom 

Richmond and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the Ground Water Protection Council and the Administrator of the Montana Board of Oil & Gas Conservation. This agency is responsible for the environmental safeguards related to oil and 

gas exploration and production, including the re-injection of produced salt water into 

geologic formations below underground source of drinking water. This Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) program assures the safety of our underground water supplies. My testimony today is submitted on behalf of the Ground Water Protection 

Council (GWPC). 

The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) is responsible for the development 

and operation of the nationally acclaimed Risk Based Data Management System 

(RBDMS) system. GWPC has received DOE’s Energy 100 Award for RBDMS. This 

recognizes RBDMS as one of the top 100 of all DOE projects. Research indicates 

that agencies with data management systems that provide access to oil and gas data 

experienced a conservative estimated increase of 10 percent for new developments 

as a result of the much improved data access. The GWPC is made up of state oil 

and gas agencies, as well as, those that regulate ground water and other underground injection control programs. Through the GWPC, the states are all working 

together to protect ground water resources while holding down the cost of environmental compliance. 
249

We would like to thank the Committee for the previous support of approximately 

$950,000 in the fiscal year 2003 budget. The funding has given the states the opportunity to develop additional software and management tools that enables states to 

make decisions that result in the best possible balance of exploration and environmental considerations. We, in turn share that information with the public and companies we regulate, many of which are small businesses that would not otherwise 

have the ability to access such accurate information. We ask for continued support 

and assistance to state oil & gas agencies and the independent oil & gas industry 

with continued funding of the Risk Base Data Management Systems (RBDMS) and 

urge the Committee to hold the funding for RBDMS at the same level ($950,000) 

for fiscal year 2004 so we can continue to expand the system to every oil and gas 

producing state. The system is currently operational in Alaska, Montana, Nebraska, 

Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Utah, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, as well as the Osage Tribe 

in Oklahoma. In 03 we are installing RBDMS in Nevada and California and we are 

beginning the process in Oklahoma and Louisiana. Additional funding would allow 

each remaining state to initiate the program as well. This funding will be used to 

enhance the current capabilities of RBDMS to make it accessible to both the public, 

local governmental agencies and the companies through the Internet. We are learning that electronic commerce mutually saves time and money for both the oil and 

gas industry and the regulatory agencies. On-line permitting and reporting is cost 

effective and saves industry time and money. One California operator estimated 

that an automated permitting system for new drills and reworks could increase production from one of its larger oil and gas fields by 500,000 barrels per year. Therefore, any delay in issuing a permit caused by the inefficiencies of manual processes 

and analyses can have a significant impact on production. This funding will provide 

the smaller independent oil producers access to this environmental data management system. Smaller producers are often the most in need of such a system because high regulatory costs hit them the hardest. 

I want to stress that states are dedicating their own financial resources to 

RBDMS. For example Ohio, is using almost $600,000 in state capital improvement 

and $400,000 of operations funding to implement RBDMS. Every state currently 

using the system has also contributed to building the system and I know all additional states are planning on using state dollars as well as federal funds. But what 

the remaining states need is a relatively small amount of start-up assistance after 

which time they have shown they are willing to begin applying their own resources. 

State match for federal funding exceeds 100 percent. We are more than doubling 

the investment of federal dollars we receive. 

With past assistance from the U.S. Department of Energy, the GWPC assembled 

a project team with extensive knowledge and experience in state oil and gas agency 

environmental data management to develop RBDMS, the only comprehensive, fully 

relational, PC-based oil & gas regulatory data management system in the country. 

By allowing the oil and gas industry to participate in the next phase of development 

of the system, we will assure that it will be useful and effective for them. Continued 

funding at $950,000, the fiscal year 2004 level, will be mutually beneficial to the 

private sector and the states by keeping environmental compliance costs down. 

RBDMS is one of the best examples we have seen of how the states, working with 

the private sector, can improve both industry production and environmental protection at the same time. Included with my testimony within the ‘‘RBDMS Annual Report’’ are endorsement letters of RBDMS as an alternative to costly command and 

control regulatory policies. It is supported by both the regulated community and the 

regulators themselves. Continuing to fund the states in this manner allows us to 

tailor our regulatory program needs to the industry which operate in our respective 

states. There is no federal alternative, or ‘‘one size fits all’’ national approach that 

would work as efficiently as this cooperative multi-State effort. 

In summary, the funding we are requesting will provide a means for the successful expansion of the Risk Based Data Management System and will provide the following benefits: (1) improve environmental protection, (2) less regulatory and compliance costs for producers, (3) better state enforcement of environmental regulations, (4) increased exploration activity by small and independent operators and (5) 

increased oil and gas production. The remainder of my testimony provides a more 

detailed explanation of how we have used prior funds and how we would use the 

requested increase. Due to its length, the GWPC will submit it independently in the 

form of an ‘‘RBDMS Annual Report’’. 
250

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES DISCIPLINE, USGS

Since fiscal year 1994, the base level of funding for BRD has lagged more than 

$30 million behind the rate of inflation, to say nothing about the inability of BRD 

to realize substantial increases in program funding to meet the basic research needs 

of the natural resources community. The President’s proposed fiscal year 2004 budget continues to reflect an emphasis on meeting needs identified by Department of 

the Interior land management bureaus, while biological research needs for the remainder of the land area in the United States, including that managed by the 

States, remains largely ignored. 

The Association is disappointed that the biology component of the fiscal year 2004 

USGS budget request reflects a 1.2 percent reduction from the fiscal year 2003 enacted. This reduction is due primarily to the lack of continued funding for several 

Congressional Add-ons, most of which are intended to provide critical, timely information to improve natural resource management in the United States. We recommend that Congress continue to fund the following projects in the BRD budget 

for fiscal year 2004: Amphibians Research and Monitoring ($500,000), Ballast Water 

Research ($499,000), Mark Twain National Forest Mining Study ($750,000), Yukon 

River Chum Salmon ($180,000), Molecular Biology Studies ($400,000), Pallid Sturgeon Study ($500,000), Diamondback Terrapin Study ($100,000), Atlantic Salmon 

($50,000), DNA Bear Sampling in Montana ($1 million), Multidisc Water Resources—Leetown ($300,000), Additional Work at Lake Tahoe ($500,000), Great 

Lakes Vessel Operations ($120,000), Two Additional Researchers—GLSC ($180,000), 

Genetic Research at Wellsboro Lab ($500,000), and Cherokee National Forest Inventory and Monitoring ($300,000). These projects are of particular importance to State 

fish and wildlife agencies in providing necessary information to address these local, 

regional and national needs. 

Of particular concern in the fiscal year 2004 BRD budget request is the reduction 

of support for continuation of the long-term Fire Science initiative. These fire ecology studies represent collaborative efforts with the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management. These studies are intended 

to enhance our understanding of the effects of fire, subsequent recovery of the landscape, and improve our ability to manage burned landscapes. It is the intent of 

USGS to rely on the Interagency Fire Science Fund for continuation of this work. 

We do not believe this represents an effective approach for long-term funding, as 

these funds must be negotiated annually. Long term studies need stable and predictable funding. The Association recommends that $2.8 million be restored by Congress for this effort. 

BRD is proposing to absorb approximately $1.9 million of $3.4 million in uncontrollable costs in the fiscal year 2004 budget. This reduction will result in significant 

losses in operational funds. The Association recommends that Congress provide $1.9 

million of additional funds to fully fund uncontrollable costs in BRD. 

The Association is also concerned that BRD is disproportionably allocating information technology (IT) reductions. It is vital that these reductions be implemented 

in a manner that best preserves all programs’ viability. The Association recommends that the proposed IT reductions be spread equitably among all BRD programs. 

The Association applauds the Administration, DOI, and USGS for their recognition of the value and growing importance of the Gap Analysis Program and the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII) and supports the $1 million increase in funding requests for fiscal year 2004 for the latter. However, we also support Congressional direction in the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill to 

BRD to further refine the objectives for NBII and clearly define a strategy for 

achieving those objectives. As we have stated in the past, these two programs are 

good examples of the results that may be derived from placing an emphasis on partnerships with States and others, as long as those partnerships are meaningful. 

The Association has long supported GAP’s inclusion of, and reliance on, State 

agencies for GAP projects, and looks forward to the expansion of States’ roles in 

Aquatic GAP. The Association is nearing the conclusion of its second year of close 

partnership with the NBII, and has seen, with gratification, the growing number 

of States that are beginning to reap the benefits of this liaison. Examples include 

sage grouse conservation/sagebrush habitat, chronic wasting disease, West Nile 

virus, and Internet access to Breeding Bird survey data. The Association seeks to 

expand the relationship of the States with the NBII Program, and recommends Congress increase the fiscal year 2004 budget for NBII by $2 million to support a pilot 
251

project designed to fund States’ data management needs through a grants award 

process to be administered by the Association. Furthermore, the Association recommends Congress increase NBII’s fiscal year 2004 budget by an additional 

$500,000 to fund the Northern Rockies Node at a level of $500,000 (a $350,000 increase over what is proposed) and the Pacific Northwest Node at a level of $350,000 

(an increase of $150,000 over what is proposed). The Association supports the proposed expansion of the California Node and the proposed initiation of the Mid-Atlantic Node in the fiscal year 2004 budget request, but also strongly believes existing 

nodes must be adequately funded. Such is the case with the Northern Rockies and 

Pacific Northwest nodes where demands far outstrip the modest funding levels currently in place. This disparity should be addressed in this budget cycle, in advance 

of other nodes scheduled for initiation next year and beyond. 

The Association applauds Congress’ past efforts at fully funding the Cooperative 

Research Units, thereby allowing Unit productivity to rise to record levels. Since 

that was first achieved in fiscal year 2001—at $14 million—there has been some 

erosion of available fiscal resources for the Units, principally due to uncontrollable 

costs. These have been disproportionately high since 90 percent of the budget for 

the Units is salaries. This first surfaced in the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget when 

the Units were $400,000 short. Because of the high proportion of personnel costs, 

the burden was high, yet the budget remained flat at $14 million. In the fiscal year 

2003 enacted budget, the Units were funded at $14.9 million. The President’s proposed fiscal year 2003 budget had actually left the budget flat, but funds were 

added in markup as follows: $400,000 for operating costs for the new Nebraska Cooperative research unit and $500,000 for uncontrollable costs—although the 

$400,000 uncontrollable shortfall from fiscal year 2002 still remains. In the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Units would be funded flat, based on the 

President’s fiscal year 2003 request. This means there would be no money for the 

Nebraska Cooperative research Unit to operate in 2004, and there would be a 

$600,000 shortfall in uncontrollables. Because of the flat budget, this would mean 

a net uncontrollable cost shortfall for three consecutive years. In short, the impact 

on the other Units would be significant. 

To maintain full funding for the Cooperative Research Units, the Association rec- ommends Congress increase the fiscal year 2004 budget by $1 million over the fiscal 

year 2003 enacted—to $15.9 million—in order to maintain the new Nebraska Unit 

that Congress established in fiscal year 2003, plus again cover uncontrollable costs 

as Congress did in fiscal year 2003 enacted. 

Three states have fisheries units only and 12 states have neither fisheries nor 

wildlife units. Most states have expressed an interest in entering into a partnership 

between the BRD, a State University and the state fish and wildlife agency to bring 

one or both Cooperative Research Units to their state. The Association is pleased 

that the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations language directs BRD ‘‘to develop a priority 

system for expanding the current program.’’ The Association looks forward to participating in this strategic planning process and we urge Congress to approve budget 

requests in subsequent years based on this undertaking. 

The Association strongly supports BRD’s proposal to fund the aquaculture chemical and drug registration effort. The continuation of this cooperative project between BRD, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

and the state fish and wildlife agencies is critically important to assure that approved, effective and safe treatment measures are available to private, state and 

federal aquaculture programs. Great progress has been made in registration of 

drugs and chemicals for the treatment and prevention of diseases in important 

aquaculture species but additional work remains to increase and expand the treatment options that are available to aquaculture managers. BRD is uniquely qualified 

for its leadership role in this project and we recommend that Congress express its 

support for BRD’s continued participation in this cooperative effort. 

A significant problem still exists with brucellosis, a disease that affects domestic 

livestock and other animals, and is present in elk and bison in the Greater Yellowstone Area, located within the states of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho. The BRD 

has a key responsibility, working with other agencies, to help resolve this issue, 

with the goal of eliminating the disease from the region by 2010. Both the National 

Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have contributed to a brucellosis 

research program conducted and partially funded by BRD to improve the vaccination program for brucellosis in elk and bison. These commitments have been on an 

‘‘ability to pay’’ basis. The Association recommends that in addition to BRD’s own 

$500,000 programmed for ongoing brucellosis studies, the other USDI agencies cooperating in this research be required to specifically identify the amount intended 

for this purpose in their respective budgets, and then transfer that amount to BRD’s 

budget to allow the Division to meet its responsibilities in resolving this issue. The 
252

Association strongly supports this research endeavor, but encourages ongoing communications and cooperation with the involved States. 

Emerging disease issues, such as West Nile virus, chronic wasting disease, footand-mouth disease, avian vacuolar myelinopathy, and whirling disease represent 

significant threats to fish and wildlife. The Association strongly recommends that 

Congress direct BRD to enhance its ability to assist state fish and wildlife management agencies in dealing with disease issues by increasing by an additional 

$500,000 the funding of the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC). Further, the 

Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS) provides vital diagnostic 

services to the States and is the principal coordinating entity between the State fish 

and wildlife agencies and the U.S. Department of Agriculture with respect to 

epizootics that can affect both domestic animals and wildlife. The funding of 

SCWDS has been static since 1987 at $250,000 (minus $18,500 in administrative 

fees paid to NWHC). Inflationary erosion has reduced the purchasing power of the 

SCWDS appropriation to approximately 25 percent of its value at inception in 1963 

and an ever-expanding workload due to emerging disease issues threatens to compromise the ability of SCWDS to continue to provide all its state and federal supporters with the level of service they have come to expect. The Association strongly 

recommends that an additional $150,000 be appropriated to BRD for SCWDS to 

bring the total to $400,000. The Association further strongly encourages BRD to request incremental increases in future years in their budget request to enable adequate funding of SCWDS. Additionally, the Association recommends that BRD increase consultation and cooperation with other wildlife resource, land management, 

agriculture, and human health agencies to control diseases that threaten the health 

of the Nation’s wildlife. 

The BRD was created to serve as the primary research arm for USDI bureaus. 

This research function was solidified with the transfer of the Cooperative Research 

Units from the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service to BRD. However, the creation of, and 

continued expansion of, natural resources research activities in the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU) within the National Park Service has led to duplication of efforts, confusion amongst cooperators, and significant expenditures of limited resources. Because Congress intended that BRD be the research arm of the 

USDI, the Association recommends Congress direct the Secretary of the Department 

of the Interior to clearly and explicitly identify the need for CESUs and articulate 

the distinction between these entities. It is the Association’s conclusion that, unless 

such a distinction can be clearly articulated and the need clearly identified, Congress should ultimately transfer the funding for NPS’ CESUs to BRD and have BRD 

assume the CESU’s ecological research function. 

The Association strongly supports BRD’s requested funding increase of $1 million 

to expand research on chronic wasting disease, a progressively degenerative and ultimately fatal disease in deer and elk; the $500,000 increase in amphibians research; and $4 million increase to expand invasive species research and begin developing a prototype model for a national early detection network for invasive species 

in U.S. terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. At the same time, however, the Association urges BRD and Congress not to diminish funding directed at ongoing research 

needs that may not, at present, be garnering the kind of public attention as those 

targeted here, but for which there remain many unanswered questions and the consequences of not continuing the research in earnest has dire consequences. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERSTATE COUNCIL ON WATER POLICY

The Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP), a national organization representing state, local and interstate water resource agencies, would like to take this 

opportunity to comment on the Administration’s proposed budget for the U.S. Geological Survey in Federal fiscal year 2004. 

ICWP is pleased to see that, in contrast to the past two years when USGS water 

data collection programs faced severe cuts, the President’s 2004 budget proposes to 

at least maintain stable funding for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Cooperative Water 

Program and National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP). Stream-gaging has 

been the hallmark function of the USGS for over a century. Water management involving water supply, water quality protection, flood control and recreation all require information on the flow condition of streams throughout the United States. 

While the President’s budget does hold the funding of these programs steady, it does 

not keep up with the anticipated four percent increase in costs typically seen annually in the stream-gaging program. Therefore, loss of gages across the country is an 

inevitable result of this budget. 
253

ICWP has made the long-term stability and security of the nation’s stream-gaging 

program a priority concern. In 2001, ICWP convened four regional workshops across 

the nation to discuss a national network of stream gages, the purposes for such 

gages and the financial responsibility of this network. Concurrently, USGS was implementing the first stages of its National Streamflow Information Program to deal 

with the erosion of national gage coverage in recent years. The ICWP workshops 

also provided a forum for critiquing USGS’s NSIP program. This critique and recommendations for a national stream-gaging network are contained in an ICWP report from February 2002, which is enclosed. 

One of the basic tenets of building the national network of stream gages has been 

the need to shore up the Cooperative Water Program. This Co-op program matches 

state and local funds with a match from the USGS. The program supports two main 

functions, data collection, such as stream-gaging, and interpretive studies. Originally, the match between non-federal cooperators and the USGS was 50:50. Over 

time, increased requests by cooperators for USGS services, coupled with stagnant 

federal funding has altered the proportion of funding within the Co-op Program, 

such that, in 2002, there was $65 million of unmatched cooperator funds supporting 

projects and gages. While there is substantial support for the USGS to continue its 

NSIP initiative to stabilize the national network of gages, there is an overwhelming 

need by cooperators to see USGS rebuild its level of commitment to the Cooperative 

Water Program and the gages supported by that program. 

Based on the findings of the ICWP regarding stream-gaging in the country, we 

would request Congress increase the federal investment in gages managed and 

maintained under the NSIP and the Cooperative Water Programs. To that end, 

ICWP requests Congress increase the Administration’s proposed 2004 USGS budget 

to add $2 million for NSIP and $2 million to the Cooperative Water Program, earmarked specifically for supporting stream gages with state and local cooperators. 

While there are a number of other programs of USGS that deal with hydrologic 

monitoring, assessment and research, ICWP believes that the paramount concern of 

state and local water managers is the acquisition of streamflow data. Without the 

provision of basic data from the nation’s rivers and streams, all other water resource 

information has marginal utility. Increased funding over current levels for the NSIP 

and Cooperative Water Program remains our first priority, and we believe it should 

be the priority of the federal government as well. 

As a side note, ICWP has become aware of Draft Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76, which effectively limits state and local governments’ use of USGS 

expertise, unless they can demonstrate the absence of a private sector vendor who 

can perform the same service. We believe this limitation applies to both interpretive 

studies and basic data collection. Given the over $65 million in unmatched funds 

directed toward USGS through its Cooperative Water Program, it is small wonder 

that the private sector would seek to re-direct those resources to engineering and 

consulting firms. While there may be some opportunity to utilize other investigators 

for interpretive analysis, ICWP believes that the basic USGS data collection responsibilities should be immune from this type of institutional approach. The value of 

having USGS, rather than the private sector, collect water data is significant. It ensures quality control by an impartial party, a factor that is often critical in potentially controversial water allocation decisions or litigation. We encourage your committee to examine the intent and effect of the OMB Circular on acquisition of water 

resource information. 

ICWP recognizes ongoing budget struggles aggravated by the hostilities in Iraq 

and need for Homeland Security, however, we would observe that providing water 

supplies to communities and industries, warning citizens to stay out of harm’s way 

during flooding events and protecting the nation’s waters from the continual threat 

of pollution are intrinsic to Homeland Security. Those functions of water management must have reliable information upon which to act, thus increased investment 

in acquiring that hydrologic intelligence is a reasonable and prudent act on the part 

of the federal government. 

ICWP appreciates your consideration of these remarks. Please feel free to contact 

me at 785–296–6170 or ICWP Executive Director Susan Gilson at 202–218–4133 to 

continue this discussion. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MINERAL POLICY CENTER

On behalf of the Mineral Policy Center and its members around the country, we 

appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on three key hardrock minerals-related issues in the Interior Appropriations bill that are vital to the public interest. 
254

First, we urge the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee to provide full 

funding for United States Geological Survey (USGS), and in particular, the Mineral 

Resources Program. Unfortunately, the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request would cut funding to an unacceptable level for both of these programs. The 

President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for the USGS is $895.5 million, a decrease of $24 million or 2.6 percent relative to the fiscal year 2003 enacted level 

of $919.3 million. The Mineral Resources Program would suffer even further—the 

President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request is $43.4 million, a decrease of $12.4 million or 22.2 percent from the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $55.8 million. Such 

cuts would make it extremely difficult for the USGS to produce the same quality 

and quantity of information that it has in the past, with the result that the public’s 

awareness of such information would also decline. It is critical that the USGS be 

fully funded, with adequate levels for the Mineral Resources program to research 

and produce national and international information products. 

The USGS and the Mineral Resources Program collect, analyze and provide data 

that is of vital use to the public and to public interest groups. For example, the 

Western Region Mineral Resources Project works to assess the mineral resources 

and mineral related environmental problems of the western region of the United 

States, focusing on impacts to the environment and public health; sustainability and 

societal need; the economy and public policy; and more. Other programs, such as 

the Minerals Information Team, provide key data on the domestic and international 

supply and demand for minerals via the Minerals Yearbook and Mineral Commodity 

Summaries. Because of the often devastating impacts that hardrock mining in the 

United States and internationally can have on communities, water supplies, habitat 

and other crucial natural resources, not to mention taxpayers and local economies, 

such information is invaluable to for the public. 

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Mineral Resources Program. As 

identified by the National Academy of Sciences and others, those charged with administering U.S. minerals resources—the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service—inadequately document and/or publicize their mineral management activities and the consequences of mineral activity under their management. If it 

weren’t for the USGS Mineral Resources Program, the public would know little 

about mineral activity in the United States. 

Additionally, the international aspect of the Mineral Resources Program must not 

be overlooked—many hardrock mining companies are active both here and abroad, 

and many are also foreign-owned. Data on mining overseas can directly impact the 

situation on the ground here. 

The USGS and its programs are the only source of minerals information that is 

both readily available and affordable to ordinary citizens and public interest groups. 

As such, this remains one of the only ways that public interest groups and concerned members of the public can check on the accuracy of information disseminated 

by the hardrock mining industry itself. 

In addition to full funding for the USGS, Mineral Policy Center highly supports 

the retention in the Interior Appropriations bill placing a moratorium on any new 

patent applications under the general mining laws. This provision has been reinstated every year since 1994 and represents sound public policy. Prior to the enactment of this moratorium, mining companies acting under the 1872 Mining Law purchased public land equal in size to the state of Connecticut, containing minerals 

worth more than $245 billion. In 1994, the Canadian company Barrick Resources 

purchased the Goldstrike Mine in Nevada, which is worth $10 billion, for about 

$9,765—literally a millionth of its worth. Such a giveaway of public resources 

should never be allowed to occur again. 

Finally, we would like to praise the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for its 

past efforts to keep many anti-environmental riders out of the bill and urge that 

this bill be kept clean of any such anti-environmental provisions this year. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SCIENCE AND THE

ENVIRONMENT

SUMMARY

The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) urges Congress to 

appropriate $959.7 million for the U.S. Geological Survey in fiscal year 2004, an increase of 4.4 percent over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $919.3 million (Table 

1). Our national interests will be served if Congress provides adequate resources for 

the USGS to fulfill its mission, including its critical role in homeland security. 
255

NCSE supports increased federal investment in USGS programs that underpin responsible natural resource stewardship, improve resilience to natural and humaninduced hazards, and contribute to the long-term health, security, and prosperity of 

the nation. A 4.4 percent increase in the USGS budget in fiscal year 2004 would 

provide new funding to support the agency’s responsibilities related to homeland security and other priorities and support an adjustment that accounts for inflation 

and uncontrollable costs. 

NCSE is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that has been working since 1990 

to improve the scientific basis for environmental decisionmaking. Our work is endorsed by nearly 500 organizations, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

to the Sierra Club, including the National Association of Attorneys General, National Association of Counties, some 300 colleges and universities, and more than 

80 scientific and professional societies. As a neutral science-based organization, 

NCSE promotes science and its relationship with decisionmaking but does not take 

positions on environmental issues themselves. 

The National Council for Science and the Environment thanks the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies for the opportunity to provide testimony on the U.S. Geological Survey budget request for fiscal year 2004. 

FEDERAL INVESTMENTS IN R&D

Federal investments in R&D and science education are essential to the future 

well-being and prosperity of the nation and deserve the highest priority of Congress. 

The long-term prosperity of the nation and the maintenance of our quality of life 

depend on a steady and growing commitment of federal resources to science and 

technology. 

The U.S. Geological Survey is a critical component of the nation’s R&D portfolio. 

NCSE supports the continued vitality of the unique combination of biological, geological, hydrological and mapping programs of the U.S. Geological Survey. The 

USGS provides independent, high-quality data, information, research support and 

assessments needed by federal, state, local and tribal policymakers, resource and 

emergency managers, engineers and planners, researchers and educators and the 

public. NCSE supports increased federal investment in USGS programs that underpin responsible natural resource stewardship, improve resilience to natural and 

human-induced hazards, and contribute to the long-term health, security and prosperity of the nation. 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The USGS has tremendous strength in areas that are critical to homeland security, such as protecting water resources and producing digital maps that are needed 

for assessing terrorist threats and responding to terrorist attacks. The significance 

of USGS research to homeland security is reflected by the fact that its report on 

‘‘Source-Area Characteristics of Large Public Surface-Water Supplies in the Coterminous United States,’’ has been withdrawn from approximately 300 federal depositories. FBI agents visited several libraries to ensure that the document was truly 

removed from circulation. 

After September 11, the USGS provided more than 100,000 topographic maps as 

well as digital geospatial information and Landsat images to emergency response, 

law enforcement, intelligence, and defense agencies. The USGS has produced a set 

of 55,000 topographic maps that provides the nation’s only comprehensive coverage 

of the nation’s infrastructure, including highways, bridges, dams, power plants, airports, railroads, and major buildings. The average age of the topographic maps is 

23 years. The USGS National Map program would bring this asset into the 21st 

century. Accelerated investments in the National Map—which involves partnerships 

with federal, state, and local agencies and the private sector—will pay dividends to 

homeland security, economic development, natural resource management, and many 

other national needs. 

Some of the proposed cuts in the USGS fiscal year 2004 budget request are in 

areas related to homeland security, such as topographic mapping and research on 

the dispersal of toxic substances in lakes, streams, and aquifers. At a time when 

the federal government is allocating tens of billions of dollars for homeland security, 

we urge Congress to explore the role of the USGS in homeland security and 

counterterrorism and to provide full funding for its responsibilities in these critical 

areas. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

The National Council for Science and the Environment urges Congress to appropriate $959.7 million for the U.S. Geological Survey in fiscal year 2004, an increase 
256

of 4.4 percent over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level of $919.3 million. Our national 

interests will be served if Congress provides adequate resources for the USGS to fulfill its mission. A 4.4 percent increase in the USGS budget in fiscal year 2004 would 

provide new funding to support the agency’s responsibilities related to homeland security and other priorities as well as an adjustment that accounts for inflation and 

uncontrollable costs. 

The President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request would cut nearly every line item 

in the USGS budget relative to the fiscal year 2003 enacted level (Table 1). The 

budget request would cut funding for Biological Research by 0.6 percent, Geologic 

Hazards and Resources by 5.0 percent, Mapping, Remote Sensing and Geographic 

Investigations by 9.6 percent, and Water Resources by 3.4 percent. Total funding 

for the USGS would decrease by $24 million or 2.6 percent. 

The proposed cuts would have negative impacts related to homeland security; natural hazards mitigation; water, energy, and mineral resources; invasive species; the 

national spatial data infrastructure; and other areas. For example, the Toxic Substances Hydrology program would receive a disproportionate cut of 17.7 percent. 

USGS water programs are essential for maintaining safe and secure water resources 

for citizens of the United States. 

NCSE greatly appreciates the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior 

and Related Agencies’ sustained support for the U.S. Geological Survey. We are especially grateful for the Subcommittee’s leadership in restoring past cuts in the 

USGS budget. Thank you very much for your interest in improving the scientific 

basis for environmental decisionmaking.

TABLE 1.—U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY APPROPRIATIONS 

[Budget authority in millions of dollars] 

USGS Activity/Subactivity 

Budget Authority Change from fiscal year 2003 enacted to fiscal 

year 2004 request Fiscal year 

actual 

Fiscal year 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2004

request Amount Percent 

Mapping, Remote Sensing, & Geog. Investigations ................ $133.1 $133.2 $120.5 ¥$12.7 ¥9.6

Cooperative Topographic Mapping ................................. 81.0 81.1 74.1 ¥7.0 ¥8.6

Land Remote Sensing ..................................................... 35.8 35.7 34.0 ¥1.7 ¥4.7

Geographic Analysis and Monitoring .............................. 16.3 16.4 12.3 ¥4.0 ¥24.7

Geologic Hazards, Resources, and Processes ......................... 232.6 233.2 221.6 ¥11.6 ¥5.0 

Geologic Hazard Assessments ........................................ 74.9 75.0 72.8 ¥2.2 ¥3.0 

Geologic Landscape & Coastal Assessments ................ 77.9 78.7 79.4 0.7 0.9 

Geologic Resource Assessment ...................................... 79.7 79.5 69.4 ¥10.1 ¥12.7

Water Resources Investigations .............................................. 206.4 207.2 200.1 ¥7.1 ¥3.4 

Hydrologic Monitoring, Assessm’ts & Research ............. 136.1 136.8 135.6 ¥1.2 ¥0.9 

Cooperative Water Program ............................................ 64.3 64.4 64.5 0.1 0.2 

Water Resources Research Act Program ........................ 6.0 6.0 0.0 ¥6.0 ¥100.0 

Biological Research ................................................................. 166.2 169.8 168.9 ¥0.9 ¥0.6 

Biological Research and Monitoring .............................. 133.4 132.1 134.0 1.9 1.4 

Biological Information Management & Delivery ............. 18.9 22.8 20.7 ¥2.1 ¥9.2 

Cooperative Research Units ........................................... 14.0 14.9 14.1 ¥0.8 ¥5.1 

Science Support ....................................................................... 86.2 85.2 91.5 6.4 7.5 

Facilities .................................................................................. 89.4 90.8 92.9 2.2 2.4

Total ........................................................................... 913.9 919.3 895.5 ¥23.8 ¥2.6 

Source: ‘‘The Interior in Brief Fiscal Year 2004’’ and USGS. 

1 Included in the fiscal year 2002 Actual Column are: enacted funding ($914.0 million); Across-The-Board (ATB) reduction (¥$0.9 million); 

and transfer to Water for Cyprus Work ($0.8 million). 2 Included in the fiscal year 2003 Enacted column are: enacted funding ($925.3 million) and ATB reduction (¥$6.0 million) 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES FOR WATER RESOURCES

I am Robert Ward, President of the National Institutes for Water Resources and 

Director of the Colorado Water Resources Research Institute at Colorado State University. My testimony requests the Subcommittee to provide $8,775,000 to the U.S. 

Geological Survey for the state water resources research institutes program. 

First, I would like to thank you and this Subcommittee for the strong support you 

have given to the state water resources research institutes program in the past. You 

have recognized the importance of local, state and federal government agencies cooperating with universities to produce new the knowledge and understanding and 
257

also well trained and educated water professionals who will design and operate our 

increasingly sophisticated water systems in the future. In addition, I want to acknowledge the leading role you and your colleagues have played in efforts to ensure 

that the U.S. Geological Survey provides the science needed to manage the nation’s 

natural resources. 

As you know, Public Law 106–374, passed in 2000, reauthorizes appropriations 

for The Water Resources Research Act through fiscal year 2005. In passing this reauthorization, Congress recognized that the state water resources research institutes are meeting their mission objectives as outlined in the Water Resources Research Act. 

REQUEST

The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully request the addition of 

$8,775,000 in the U.S. Geological Survey’s fiscal year 2004 budget for the state 

water resources research institutes program. This recommendation is based on the 

following components: 

—$7,000,000 in base grants for the water resources research institutes as authorized by Section 104(b) of the Water Resources Research Act, including statebased competitive grants; 

—$1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of the Act, a national competitive grants program, and 

—$275,000 for program administration. 

This recommendation would provide a $125,000 base grant to support the institutes that are located at land-grant universities in each of the states, plus territories. Currently, this base grant is approximately $84,000. In addition, it would 

provide for a modest increase in the highly popular national competitive grants program. 

JUSTIFICATION

Homeland security, drought, salinity control, TMDLs, and source water protection 

are a few of the difficult water-related issues facing communities across the U.S. 

today. Each issue has a scientific foundation upon which local communities and 

state and federal agencies base water management decisions. As our population 

grows and the concern about environmental quality continues, unbiased knowledge 

and insight are demanded to insure fair and equitable decision-making. Furthermore, as new water-related problems emerge (such as those surrounding forest fire 

cleanup in the West), gaps in the science that underpins management decision-making are exposed. This, in turn, can greatly complicate the decision-making process 

for not only water managers, but also, in the case of the forest fires, forest managers. The term ‘‘sound science’’ is often used to describe the sought after knowledge 

and insight. 

For more than 37 years the 54 state water resources research institutes have 

served to link university scientists working in the water quality and water quantity 

arenas with governments, business and industry, and citizens in efforts to produce 

sound science to assist in resolving difficult water issues at the local, state and national levels. In addition, the water resources research institutes, in many cases, are 

the means by which the search for new knowledge is joined, in a collaborative manner, by local, state, federal and university managers and scientists. The state water 

resources institutes represent ‘‘sound science’’, networked among levels of government and universities. 

The water resources research institute program is constantly striving for efficiency in research administration and collaboration. In cooperation with the U.S. 

Geological Survey (which administers the water resources research institute program), the water institutes are developing and implementing modern electronic information technology to manage their nationally networked water research programs. Proposals for the national competition are submitted electronically, peer reviewed electronically (by a list of scientists from across the United States), and reported electronically. The water research management system is now being employed by some of the state institutes to manage state-based water research competitions. The resulting database of current research plans and activities, as well 

as past results, are increasingly being made readily available to the public and professionals alike via the internet. Electronic administration of water research assists 

in fostering research collaboration in ways not dreamed of just 10 years ago. This 

is but one example of the value of a national network of water institutes working 

together with local, state and federal partners, particularly the U.S. Geological Survey. 
258

State water resources research institutes take the relatively modest amount of 

federal funding appropriated by this Subcommittee, leverage it 2:1 with state 

matching funds and funding from other sources, including local governments, and 

use it to put university scientists to work finding solutions to the most pressing local 

and state water problems that are of national importance. In fiscal year 2002, the 

institutes generated about $22.70 in support for each federal dollar appropriated to 

them through this program and put three-quarters of every dollar they received into 

research projects. The remainder supports information transfer, training activities, 

etc. This program does not provide any indirect costs to universities, unlike most 

federal research programs. All of the funding goes to support the goals set forth in 

the Water Resources Research Act. 

Federal funding for the water resources research institute program is therefore 

the catalyst that moves states to invest in university-based research to address their 

own water management issues. The added benefit is that often research to address 

state and local problems helps solve problems that are of regional and national importance, as well. Perhaps most important, the federal funding provides the driving 

force of collaboration in water research and education among local, state, federal 

and university water professionals. 

How do water resources research institutes know they are working on the most 

pressing water issues? Each institute brings together a local advisory panel typically 

consisting of local, state, and federal agency officials, representatives of business 

and industry, and representative of non-governmental organizations. These panels 

identify the most important water problems facing their states, establish priorities 

for research, and rank proposals as to relevance. 

The work of the water resources research institutes does not stop with identifying 

needs and arranging for research to address the needs. Once research is completed, 

institutes also see that the results are transferred to federal, state, and local agencies and the general public via publication of reports; newsletters; presentation of 

seminars, workshops and conferences; maintenance of Internet sites, and one-on-one 

contact with agency personnel. Many institutes collaborate directly with Cooperative 

Extension in distributing water research findings. 

Institutes also help educate future water scientists. Quite often a significant portion of a research grant goes to pay part of the stipend of a master’s or PhD student 

studying in such critical fields as watershed hydrology, hydrogeology, aquatic ecology, toxicology, sanitary engineering, and water resources engineering. In fiscal year 

2002, institutes provided research support for more than 1,165 students. As you 

know, our scientific workforce is aging and a mass exodus through retirements is 

expected in government, academia and industry over the next decade. Supporting 

the education of new scientists is a critical role of institutes that should be expanded. 

In fiscal year 2002, water resources research institutes across the nation funded 

198 research projects from their base grants and 936 projects from additional research funds. Typically, institutes can fund only one of every four or five proposals 

they receive in response to solicitations based on their established priorities. 

The state-based water research collaboration focus of the core funding is complimented by a national water research competition referred to as the national competitive grants program (or Section 104(g) grants). The national competitive grants 

program is administered by USGS in collaboration with the National Institutes for 

Water Resources. Priorities for this program are set jointly by USGS and the institutes. This program received 75 proposals in fiscal year 2002 and was able to fund 

only eight. Here again, regional and national research needs are not being met. For 

instance, in much of the Southeast we are suffering from a 3-year drought that 

some are now predicting to stretch out another 7 years. There are many unanswered questions about the effects of this drought not only on regional water supplies but also on water quality and habitat. We should already be planning how to 

respond to the potential for long-term drought, but there are many gaps in the information base. An increase in the competitive grants funding could catalyze additional 

research on regional problems such as effects of drought in the same way that an 

increase in base grants would catalyze research on local and state water resources 

problems. 

There are many pressing needs for new knowledge in the water resources area. 

For 37 years, the Water Resources Research Institute program has been linking university scientists to government, business and citizens to provide new knowledge 

and help solve problems. This is a productive, useful, and valuable partnership that 

should be continued and expanded. 

Mr. Chairman, basing water quality and water quantity management on sound 

science is worthy goal. But, we have to invest to produce sound science. Congress 

must invest to catalyze states and states must invest to address their own issues. 
259

You can rest assured that if you do your part, the water resources research institutes will carry the challenge to state and local governments, business and industry, 

foundations and environmental groups to invest in sound science for water resources 

management. The National Institutes for Water Resources respectfully recommend 

this Subcommittee provide $8,775,000 to the USGS for the state water resources research institutes program authorized by the Water Resources Research Act. Thank 

you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is submitting these comments regarding the fiscal year 2004 proposed budget for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Biological 

Resources Division (BRD). WMI is a private, non-profit scientific and educational organization dedicated to the conservation of wildlife through wise stewardship and 

management of species and habitats. WMI consists of highly respected wildlife professionals each with considerable experience with wildlife and natural resources 

agencies prior to joining WMI. Our comments include recommendations for the following increases over the Administration’s budget request: $1.4 million for Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units; $1.9 million for uncontrollables; $2.8 million 

for the Fire Science Initiative; $500,000 for the National Wildlife Health Center; 

$150,000 for the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study; and $3 million 

for the DOI Landscape Initiative. 

The Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs) are fundamental to 

producing both the natural resources scientists needed for the future and the 

science information needed by federal and state land management agencies. In recent years, Congress has recognized the need to support appropriations to fully staff 

the CRUs, and provided consistent increases in funding to fill vacant positions. 

CRUs are unique in that over 90 percent of their budget is for salaries. However, 

OMB and Department of Interior budget guidance assumes that 50 percent of budgets are salaries. This discrepancy, added to the budget guidance directing BRD to 

absorb more than half of the uncontrollables, will result in significant shifts in costs 

just to cover salaries, and will again jeopardize the ability of CRUs to fill vacancies. 

This is exactly the situation Congress attempted to correct in the recent past by 

adding additional funding to permit full staffing of the CRUs. In addition, a new 

CRU was established in Nebraska in fiscal year 2003, with $400,000 appropriated 

to fund that Unit. The dollars to fund that Unit again in fiscal year 2004 are absent 

from the budget request. WMI recommends that Congress add $900,000 to the CRU 

budget to provide the $400,000 needed for continued funding of the new Nebraska 

CRU and an additional $500,000 to fully cover the uncontrollables of CRUs and correct the discrepancy between actual salary costs and those assumed by OMB and 

DOI budget guidelines. 

Three states have fisheries units only, and 12 states have neither fisheries nor 

wildlife Units. Most states have expressed an interest in entering into a partnership 

with BRD, a state university, the state fish and wildlife agency, and the Wildlife 

Management Institute to bring one or both CRUs to their state. An initiative is underway by WMI, BRD, state fish and wildlife agencies and other stakeholders to review the Research Unit program and to develop recommendations to ensure that 

critical research needs are met in the future. We recommend that Congress direct 

BRD to consider these recommendations and in future years to develop appropriate 

budget requests consistent with those recommendations. 

Since fiscal year 1994, the base funding level for BRD has lagged more than $30 

million behind the rate of inflation, at a time when real increases are needed to 

meet the basic research and information needs of the natural resources community. 

We are especially concerned that BRD is now being asked to absorb almost $1.9 million out of $3.4 million in uncontrollable costs. This will force significant reductions 

in operational funds for critical programs. WMI recommends that Congress fully 

fund uncontrollable costs by adding $1.9 million for uncontrollables. 

We are disappointed by the proposed reduction in support for the long term Fire 

Science initiative. These fire ecology studies are collaborative studies with the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management 

and are needed to enhance understanding of the effects of fire and landscape recovery, and to improve our ability to manage burned landscapes. WMI recommends 

that $2.8 million be restored by Congress for this effort. 

WMI strongly supports the proposed budget of $1.25 million for studies of Chronic 

Wasting Disease (CWD) and the $4.05 million proposed budget for studies of 

invasive species. Control of CWD is a major concern to state and federal agencies 

and to sportsmen, and will continue to be for some years. We are also concerned 
260

about the spread of West Nile Virus (WNV) and its impacts on bird species throughout the United States. WMI recommends that Congress fully fund the requested 

$1.25 million for CWD and $4.05 million for invasive species, and we further recommend that Congress add an additional $500,000 to the funding of the National 

Wildlife Health Center and an additional $150,000 to the Southeastern Cooperative 

Wildlife Disease Study to conduct the research needed to cope with CWD, WNV, and 

other diseases. 

WMI also is concerned about special research needs of other DOI agencies, and 

BRD’s ability to meet those needs. The Science on the DOI Landscape initiative proposed budget includes $1.3 million for biological research programs to meet regional 

priorities designated by the DOI Bureaus. WMI recommends that Congress increase 

this research support to $3 million for biological programs, and that Congress direct 

that research should include sage grouse conservation needs, wildlife impacts of energy exploration and development, and the population and habitat surveys necessary to support waterfowl seasons and conservation of other priority bird species. 

Finally, I would just reiterate our concerns that the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Units be fully funded and that 100 percent of uncontrollable costs be included in that funding. These Units have a lengthy history of partnerships and successes, and are vital to states and others for providing answers needed for management of our nation’s fish and wildlife resources. 

Thank you for considering our comments. We look forward to working with you 

and your staff throughout the appropriations process. If you or your staff would like 

to discuss our recommendations further, please contact me or Terry Riley, Director 

of Conservation, at (202) 371–1808. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT COMMISSION

My name is Gregory E. Conrad and I am Executive Director of the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to present this statement to 

the Subcommittee regarding the views of the Compact’s member states concerning 

the fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the Office of Surface Mining (OSM) within 

the U.S. Department of the Interior. In its proposed budget, OSM is requesting 

$57.6 million to fund Title V grants to states and Indian tribes for the implementation of their regulatory programs and $126.5 million for state and tribal Title IV 

abandoned mine land (AML) program grants. Our statement will address both of 

these budgeted items. 

The Compact is comprised of 20 states that together produce some 60 percent of 

the Nation’s coal as well as important noncoal minerals. Participation in the Compact is gained through the enactment of legislation by the member states authorizing their entry into the Compact and they are represented by their respective Governors who serve as Commissioners. The Compact’s purposes are to advance the 

protection and restoration of land, water and other resources affected by mining 

through the encouragement of programs in each of the party states that will achieve 

comparable results in protecting, conserving and improving the usefulness of natural resources and to assist in achieving and maintaining an efficient, productive 

and economically viable mining industry. 

Over the past several years, the Commission has alerted the Subcommittee to a 

potentially debilitating trend in Title V grant funding. As you know, these grants 

support the implementation of state regulatory programs under the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) and as such are essential to the full and effective operation of those programs. Ever since fiscal year 1995, the appropriation 

for these grants has either decreased or remained stagnant. Following an encouraging increase by Congress in fiscal year 2001, OSM has failed to provide any increase for Title V grants for fiscal year 2004, despite the states’ projected need for 

additional moneys to meet actual program expenses. 

Each year, OSM requests and receives increases in its own budget to meet ‘‘uncontrollable costs’’ (such as workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, retirement costs and pay rate increases) and ‘‘fixed overhead costs’’. In estimating its 

projected program operating costs, the states face these same annual increases, in 

addition to the costs associated with the escalating cost of travel and replacement 

of equipment (especially vehicles and computers). And yet, a trend has emerged over 

recent federal fiscal years where states have received no significant increases in the 

grants that are intended to support their programs and address inflationary concerns, with the notable exception of fiscal year 2001 when the states received a 

much-needed and well justified $3 million increase over OSM’s proposed amount. 

For fiscal year 2004, the states (and tribes) have projected a need for $64.4 million 

for Title V grants based on a new and improved budget forecasting methodology. 
261

This represents a well-documented and well-justified increase of $3 million over our 

request of last year ($61.3 million) and yet we are faced with an OSM proposal that 

does not provide for any increase in funding for Title V grants in fiscal year 2004. 

This is very discouraging and reflects either a lack of appreciation for the states’ 

Title V funding needs or a misunderstanding of the Title V dilemma facing the 

states, and ultimately, OSM. 

It is essential that the states be made whole in fiscal year 2004 and thus we are 

requesting Congress to appropriate the full amount requested by the states and 

tribes of $64.4 million. If this does not occur, it likely will result in the classic 

‘‘SMCRA Catch-22’’ situation: where there is inadequate funding to support state 

programs, some states will be faced with either turning all or portions of their programs back to OSM or, in other cases, will face lawsuits from environmental groups 

for failing to fulfill mandatory duties in an effective manner, not unlike the present 

situation in West Virginia and what previously occurred in Kentucky and Oklahoma. Of course, where a state does, in fact, turn all or part of its Title V program 

over to OSM (or if OSM forces this issue based on an OSM determination of ineffective state program implementation), the state would be ineligible for Title IV funds 

to reclaim abandoned mine lands. This would be the height of irony, since the states 

have recently worked diligently to convince the Interior Department, OMB and Congress about the need to increase funding for state Title IV AML work. 

OSM’s own Budget Justification Document acknowledges the likely outcome 

should states not receive adequate funding:

‘‘Primacy States have the most direct and critical responsibilities for conducting 

regulatory operations to minimize the impact of coal extraction operations on people 

and the environment. The States have the unique capabilities and knowledge to regulate the lands within their borders. Providing a 50 percent match of Federal funds 

to primacy States in the form of Administration and Enforcement (A&E) Grants results in the highest benefit and the lowest cost to the Federal Government. If a 

State were to relinquish primacy, OSM would have to hire sufficient numbers and 

types of Federal employees to implement the program. The cost to the Federal Government would be significantly higher.’’——[OSM Budget Justification Document, 

‘‘Environmental Protection,’’ page 65.]

Some may argue that there are at least a handful of states who either are unable 

to meet the 50 percent state match or are unable to spend all of the federal funds 

allocated to them in a particular grant year. This merely reflects the reality of the 

significant fiscal challenges facing these states as they attempt to balance record 

deficits with their desire and intent to continue operating effective state regulatory 

programs. Rather than focus on the occasional inability to match federal dollars or 

the limited deobligation of year-end moneys, we believe it is more critical to investigate the potential mechanisms for assisting the states to meet their financial requirements, either through increased overall grant funding (as we propose) or 

through adjustments to the current funding formula. This will become increasingly 

important as the federal government is faced with the dilemma of either securing 

the necessary funding for state programs or implementing those programs (or portions thereof) themselves—at significantly higher costs. 

Suffice it to say that should our proposed increase not be approved, one of the 

more distressing outcomes resulting from inadequate Title V grant funding is that 

it will pit the states and OSM against one another as they compete for limited 

funds. Given the commitment of the states to their respective regulatory programs, 

and their role as front-line regulatory authorities under SMCRA, it is impossible for 

the states not to urge full funding of their programs. We believe that there should 

be a way for Congress to fund both OSM and the states, thereby assuring that the 

mandates of SMCRA are met. 

For years now, we have tried to impress upon OSM and your Subcommittee the 

value and importance of the states’ estimates of program costs and the necessity of 

meeting the states’ funding needs. Under OSM’s proposed fiscal year 2004 budget, 

it will require all of the states’ fiscal ingenuity and belt-tightening efforts, together 

with some difficult trade-offs, to manage our programs and resources in such a way 

that we can achieve the same level of performance that has been expected from us 

in the past. We are especially concerned about the impacts of this funding crisis on 

OSM’s evaluation of state programs pursuant to federal oversight. How ironic it 

would be for the states to receive something less than the high marks we have consistently received from OSM due to insufficient grant funding. 

With regard to funding for state Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML) program 

grants, OSM’s proposed decrease of $17 million from last year’s amount of $144 million for non-Clean Streams/non-emergency state grants is very disheartening. In recent years, OSM has been working with the states and Congress toward full funding 
262

for the AML program, whereby the amount of receipts paid into the Fund from reclamation fees by coal operators each year is appropriated and then allocated to the 

states and tribes to address the myriad problems remaining in the AML inventory. 

Last year we saw the President’s budget propose a $17 million reduction for state 

AML grants, which Congress ultimately (and thankfully) restored. This year, we see 

a continued attempt to reverse the trend once again—without justification or rational explanation. While we are well aware of the Administration’s efforts to reduce 

the overall budget by some percentage in order to meet other priorities related to 

Homeland Security and the War on Terrorism, this is not the time or place to exercise such reductions and back track on the promise to provide adequate funding to 

the states to address AML problems. 

As the states recently reiterated to Congressional staff, OSM and OMB, significant progress has been made by the states in remediating outstanding AML problems and sites. As of September 30, 2002, the states have obligated 93 percent of 

all funds received and $1.3 billion worth of priority 1 and 2 problems have been reclaimed. Another $319 million worth of priority 3 problems have been funded or 

completed and $309 million worth of noncoal problems have been funded or reclaimed. Of the $3.2 billion provided to the states in Title IV grant moneys, $2.4 

billion has been used for construction or project costs and only an average of 15 percent of Title IV moneys were spent on administrative costs. However, 45 percent of 

priority 1 and 2 sites in the AML inventory remain to be reclaimed and the cost 

of completing this reclamation now approaches $6.6 billion. We would be pleased to 

present the Subcommittee with more information and analysis regarding these figures. Suffice it to say that major AML problems remain to be addressed and are only 

getting more expensive, and in some cases more extensive, with the passage of time 

due to inflation, deterioration of the sites and urban sprawl. The health and safety 

of the public is also increasingly at risk. It is absolutely critical to release additional 

moneys from the AML Trust Fund now in order to allow the states to address these 

problems today. The states are prepared to deliver the expected benefits and services to our customers under the Title IV AML program in a cost-effective and efficient manner and welcome the new opportunities presented by increased AML funding. In this regard, we are very encouraged by OSM’s statement of intent in its proposed budget to support extension of the fee collection authority under Title IV of 

SMCRA, as well as its intent to propose a mechanism whereby more receipts from 

the Fund are targeted to abandoned mine reclamation, thus increasing the pace of 

the overall reclamation program. This is consistent with the position we have been 

advocating for the past several years. We look forward to working with OSM, the 

Congress and other affected parties to seek the expeditious reauthorization of fee 

collection authority prior to the expiration date of September 30, 2004. Please see 

the attached resolution recently adopted by IMCC, which addresses AML reauthorization. 

In the meantime, we urge the Subcommittee to continue its commitment to full 

funding for the AML program and to increase OSM’s budget by $37 million—a $20 

million increase for state Title IV (non-Clean Streams/non-emergency) grants over 

last years’s amount of $143 million, for a total of $163 million for state/tribal grants 

in fiscal year 2004. This amount would allow ‘‘minimum program’’ states to be funded at $2 million, the authorized allocation level established by Congress for these 

states in 1990, which we again urge the Subcommittee to restore. Given the fact 

that receipts into the AML Fund this year should average $285 million (exclusive 

of interest), we believe the suggested increase is a modest and appropriate one, and 

is clearly justified given the amount of AML work remaining to be done. 

We also urge the Subcommittee to support adequate funding for OSM’s training 

program, including moneys for state travel. These programs are central to the effective implementation of state regulatory programs as they provide necessary training 

and continuing education for state agency personnel. Additionally, the states are 

key players in OSM’s training program, providing instructors for many of the 

courses. IMCC also urges the Subcommittee to support adequate funding for TIPS 

and SOAP, two programs that directly benefit the states by providing needed upgrades to computer software and hardware and assistance to small operators in permit preparation. 

Finally, IMCC requests continuing support for the Acid Draining Technology Initiative (ADTI), a nationwide technology development program with a guiding principle of building consensus among Federal and State regulatory agencies, universities and the coal industry to predict and remediate acid drainage from active and 

inactive coal and metal mines. This collaborative effort receives funding and other 

support from industry and several federal agencies for specific projects. OSM has 

provided ADTI $200,000 for the last three fiscal years, which has been a consistent 
263

source of funding for activities related to acid mine drainage from coal mines and 

has been instrumental in accomplishing ADTI’s goals. If each of the Interior Department agencies involved (OSM, BLM, and USGS) could commit $200,000 toward 

ADTI, together with other federal agencies (such as EPA, DOE and the Corps of 

Engineers), about $1 million would be available to support the work of this vital initiative. 

In conclusion, we want to reiterate that adequate Title V grants are the lifeblood 

of effective state regulatory programs. Should states be unable to operate these programs due to funding constraints, the federal government will be faced with the 

burden of operating regulatory programs at a substantially increased cost (generally 

30 to 50 percent more). Further, without Title V programs in place, states are unable to access Title IV funds. In the final analysis, it behooves everyone—OSM, the 

Congress and the states—to commit the resources necessary to assure strong and 

effective state programs that will achieve the purposes and objectives of SMCRA, 

thereby protecting the environment where active mining operations occur and enhancing the environment through remediation of past problems associated with 

abandoned mines. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ABANDONED MINE LAND

PROGRAMS

My name is Murray J. Balk, and I administer the State of Kansas’ Abandoned 

Mine Land (AML) Program as well as being this years’ President of the National 

Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (Association). In my capacity as 

President of the Association, I would like to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to submit this statement regarding the views of the Association concerning 

the U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Surface Mining’s (OSM) fiscal year 2004 

Budget Request to this subcommittee. 

The Association is a 501(c)(6) tax exempt organization made up of 30 states and 

tribes, all with a history of coal mining and coal mine related hazards. The states 

and tribes within the organization administer Abandoned Mine Land Programs, 

funded and oversighted by OSM, as provided for in Title IV of the Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95–87). The mission statement of 

the Association is: (1) to provide a forum to address current issues, discuss common 

problems, and share new technologies regarding the reclamation of abandoned mine 

lands, (2) foster positive and productive relationships between the states and tribes 

represented by the Association and the federal government, (3) serve as an effective, 

unified voice when presenting states’/tribes’ common viewpoints, and (4) coordinate, 

cooperate, and communicate with the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, 

Western Interstate Energy Board, and all other organizations dedicated to the wise 

use and restoration of our natural resources. 

The 30 Abandoned Mine Land Programs represented by the Association have accomplished some very impressive reclamation which has remediated serious hazards 

created by past coal mining. The states and tribes are abating these hazards in a 

very cost effective and efficient manner. Information presented to the Association 

by OSM indicates that the states and tribes have obtained a 93 percent obligation 

rate as of September 30, 2002. This is an outstanding number considering some of 

the states and tribes do not begin their grant year until July 1, which allows them 

only 3 months to get the funds encumbered. 

This means that the states and tribes are utilizing the funding provided by OSM 

in a very timely manner, and they have a number of projects engineered, and ready 

to implement as soon as funding is available. Besides having an outstanding obligation rate, the states and tribes are doing a very good job of administering their programs by keeping their administrative costs to a minimum. Of the $3.2 billion given 

to the States and Tribes to conduct Title IV reclamation, only 15 percent of the 

these funds have been used to administer these AML Programs. This indicates that 

the states and tribes are very successful at running their programs without being 

top heavy in the area of administration. With a 93 percent obligation rate and only 

15 percent of funds going to administration, it is apparent that the states and tribes 

are quite capable of properly utilizing the funds given to them through SMCRA. 

What has been accomplished to date has made our country a safer place, but due 

to the magnitude of the problems associated with past coal mining, much more is 

needed. The following is a nationwide list as of March 28, 2003, of Priority 1 and 

2 inventory problems that still need to be remediated including their cost:
264

Problem type Units 1 Costs 

Clogged Streams (miles) ............................................................................................ 1,021 $59,016,880

Clogged Stream Lands (acres) ................................................................................... 26,883 201,931,496

Dangerous Highwalls (feet) ........................................................................................ 4,335,947 665,168,960

Dangerous Impoundments (count) ............................................................................. 811 15,735,570

Dangerous Piles & Embankments (acres) .................................................................. 9,017 267,921,479

Dangerous Slides (acres) ............................................................................................ 4,649 69,089,199

Gases: Hazardous/Explosive (count) ........................................................................... 86 2,775,001

Hazardous Equipment/Facilities (count) ..................................................................... 2,485 24,735,001

Hazardous Water Body (count) ................................................................................... 1,062 62,516,077

Industrial/Residential Waste (acres) .......................................................................... 387 9,897,797

Portals (count) ............................................................................................................ 8,925 29,697,601

Polluted Water: Agricultural/Industrial (count) .......................................................... 567 99,611,275 

Polluted Water: Human Consumption (count) ............................................................ 4,798 3,718,081,865

Subsidence (acres) ..................................................................................................... 9,040 484,626,549

Surface Burning (acres) ............................................................................................. 475 19,909,448

Underground Mine Fires (acres) ................................................................................. 4,198 857,501,301

Vertical Openings (count) ........................................................................................... 7,306 47,619,380

Total costs ..................................................................................................... 6,635,834,879 

1 Count indicates individual incidences. 

As can be seen from these figures taken directly from AMLIS, there is over $6.6 

billion in Priority 1 and 2 coal mine hazards left to remediate before we can say 

our work is complete. This undeniably demonstrates that there is much left to be 

done to correct the problems caused by past coal mining. Because of the extreme 

hazards associated with Priority 1 and 2 AML problems, the Association would encourage the committee to release additional funds so the States and Tribes can accelerate their AML work, helping to protect the population of this country from the 

hazards created by past coal mining. 

The Association encourages the committee to adopt a Title IV budget for nonClean Streams/non-Emergency AML grants of $163 million for fiscal year 2004, an 

increase of $20 million over last years budget of $143 million. A portion of this increase, $5 million, could then be used to fund the ‘‘underfunded states’’ (or minimum 

program states) at the minimum level of $2 million, as promised by Congress and 

provided for in Section 402 (g)(8) of SMCRA. The remaining $15 million could then 

be distributed among the remaining states to help alleviate more hazards associated 

with Priority 1 and 2 AML problems. The projected receipts collected through 

SMCRA entering the AML Fund this year, exclusive of interest, will be approximately $285 million. This amount, along with the $1.4 billion which remains unappropriated in the AML Fund, will more than offset the amount requested, which is 

a very valid request considering the amount of AML work that remains to be done 

in this country. 

The trend over the past few years has been to give the AML Programs less and 

less funding. Since fiscal year 2001, which was funded at $161,863,000, until fiscal 

year 2003 which was funded at $141,991,721, we have seen around a $20 million 

decrease in the amount of funding used for non-Clean Streams/non-Emergency AML 

projects. It is unreasonable to believe that the States and Tribes can do more with 

the same or even less funding. The States and Tribes are running very efficient and 

effective AML Programs, but by decreasing funding or even leaving funding at the 

status quo, we are jeopardizing the mission of the AML Programs and the mandate 

of Congress to abate these hazards as provided through SMCRA. Unless Congress 

acts quickly to remediate these hazards it will cost even more in the future. Environmental conditions at these AML sites continue to deteriorate over time, which 

means increased costs to complete AML construction projects. Highwalls continually 

erode closer to streets and homes, roofs on underground mines deteriorate further 

causing more roof collapses, and as mine fires burn, they cover larger and larger 

areas. These are just a few examples of how time and weather related environmental degradation create AML hazards that are more costly to abate. Also, inflation affects the cost of reclamation making it more costly to abate AML hazards as 

we postpone work on these AML sites. The Association would urge the committee 

to act now, before these hazardous AML sites become more expensive to remediate 

and the problem areas enlarge. The longer the committee waits to allocate these appropriations, the bigger the bite inflation and the weather will take out of the funds. 

The Association asks the committee to continue funding the OSM training program, which is one of the greatest benefits that OSM provides to the States and 

Tribes. This program provides very specialized training to AML staff which helps 
265

the States and Tribes immensely in dealing with handling many aspects of the AML 

programs, from NEPA requirements all the way through design and construction 

management. It also provides a forum for the staff from states, tribes, and OSM to 

stay up on all the new advances in reclamation technology. Another benefit of this 

training program is that the States/Tribes and OSM share the responsibility of developing and teaching the classes. Through the effort of both team members these 

classes have become very informational and help disseminate information useful in 

the field of reclamation. Another OSM program that needs to have adequate funding 

is the Technical Information Processing System (TIPS) program which provides software and hardware of a very technical nature to the States and Tribes. Through 

the TIPS program, software is shared among the States and Tribes for the design 

of reclamation projects. For these reasons, the Association would encourage adequate funding for the OSM training program and the TIPS portion of the budget. 

Finally, as the AML Trust Fund’s 2004 expiration date approaches, we need to 

ask the question, ‘‘Is there a need for Title IV, a need for AML programs across the 

country?’’ I, along with the members of the Association, believe the answer to this 

question is yes. Unless SMCRA is extended with all funds generated being distributed to the states and tribes, there is no way we can abate a majority of the hazards 

associated with the AMLIS inventory. Even with all the work that has been accomplished to date, there is still a national inventory of over $6 billion for priority 1 

and 2 AML hazards needing remediation. There are many health and safety problems as well as environmental problems, that need to be addressed by the Abandoned Mine Land Programs. Therefore, the Association members believe the funds 

generated by SMCRA are essential for protecting the people of this country from the 

hazards and environmental problems associated with past coal mining and 

SMCRA’s ability to collect fees should be extended past 2004. 

If I can be of any further help, or if you have any questions or comments please 

feel free to contact me at (620) 231–8540. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN GRADUATE CENTER

The American Indian Graduate Center (‘‘AIGC’’) of Albuquerque, New Mexico, is 

pleased to present testimony on the needs of American Indian and Alaska Native 

graduate students who are served by the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (‘‘BIA’’) Special 

Higher Education Program for Graduate Students. Our request for the 2003 academic year is for $2,000,000 from the Continuing Education portion of the BIA 

budget. 

The ATGC, a 501(c)(3) private non-profit organization, was established in 1969 

and incorporated in the state of New Mexico in 1971. AIGC has served the community for over 33 years, and has assisted more than 9,500 American Indian and Alaska Native graduate students in numerous fields of professional study. American Indians continue to be the least represented of all minority groups in the country in 

fields requiring advanced degrees. AIGC was founded to open the doors to graduate 

education for American Indians, and to help tribes obtain the educated Indian professionals they need to become more self-sufficient and able to exercise their selfdetermination rights, and to meet the duties and responsibilities that self-sufficiency and self-determination entail. Since 1972, AIGC has administered the BIA’s 

Special Higher Education Program for Graduate Students and has consistently 

maintained low overhead (less than 10 percent for several years). AIGC recently received an ‘‘A∂’’ and ‘‘Open Book Credit’’ from the American Institute of Philanthropy (‘‘AIP’’ a.k.a. CharityWatch.org), a nonprofit charity watchdog and information service, for ‘‘putting 75 percent or more towards program costs while generally 

spending $25 or less to raise $100, and for willingly sending the financial documents 

AIP requests.’’ AIGC is proud of its record of achievement, and has alumni professionals employed in a plethora of fields at numerous tribal, public, and private sector entities, many of which directly serve the American Indian community. This 

year, our 362 fellowship recipients, representing 112 tribes in 23 states, are attending 170 colleges and universities in 44 states and the District of Columbia. 

STATISTICS AND NEED

For the 2003 academic year, AIGC received 1,800 requests for applications and 

426 completed applications for funding. AIGC awarded fellowships to 362 (85 percent) applicants. The 2003 average award is $2,700, a 7 percent decline from the 

2002 average award of $2,916, and a precipitous 42 percent decline from the 2001 

average of $4,667. This decline trend is extremely troubling, given that the cost of 

higher education is forecast to rise 6 percent per year. 
266

For the academic year ended 2002 (the most recent year for which comprehensive 

statistics are compiled), 180 (50 percent) awardees were enrolled in Master’s programs, 175 (48 percent) in Doctorate, and 7 (2 percent) were pursuing dual degrees. 

124 (34 percent) were enrolled in Health and Counseling fields of study; 81 (22 percent) in Law; 34 (9 percent) in Education, 31 (9 percent) in Business; and 18 (5 percent) in Psychology. The remaining 20 percent were enrolled in a variety of fields 

of study, ranging from architecture to theology. For the seven-year 1996–2003 period, total unmet need has averaged $786,000 per year, with the average unmet need per applicant at $17,000, a potentially insurmountable gap for a graduate student, given that just one year of graduate school 

at a public school can cost in excess of $18,000. Our request of $2,000,000 was arrived at using the following formula: 

362 Awardees * $4,667 Award Goal * (110 percent Program Costs) * (106 percent 

Inflation) 

Our goal is to reverse the slide in the average award per student to ensure that 

every qualified applicant receives an increasingly significant fellowship award. 

SUMMARY

In summary, the American Indian Graduate Center requests $2,000,000 from the 

Continuing Education line item of the BIA budget for the Special Higher Education 

Program for Graduate Students. AIGC has successfully administered the program 

for 30 years, and has awarded fellowships to over 9,500 students. Of the appropriated amount, AIGC will award $1,800,000 in graduate fellowships, or $4,972 per 

student. AIGC will use the remaining $200,000 for program costs. 

The American Indian Graduate Center, and the communities it dutifully serves, 

greatly appreciate your continued support and consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

REQUEST SUMMARY

On behalf of this nation’s 34 Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), which comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), thank you for 

this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2004 Appropriations requests for the 25 

colleges currently funded under the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act (Tribal College Act), and for our tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions. The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

administers these programs. While AIHEC ultimately seeks full funding for all of 

the Tribal College Act’s authorized programs, we recognize that a focused approach 

with incremental increases is a way to best meet that goal over time. In fiscal year 

2004, we seek a total of $52.2 million for Tribal College Act programs. Our first priority within this request is to increase funding for our institutions’ basic operations 

under Titles I & II of the Act, we specifically request $49,666,000; of which, 

$39,528,000 would be for Title I grants and $10,138,000 would be allocated for Title 

II. This request is an increase of $7,650,000 over the fiscal year 2003 appropriated 

level, and $11,637,000 over the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. Additionally, we seek: $500,000 for technical assistance, an increase of $386,000 over fiscal year 2003 and the President’s request, to help address ever emerging technical 

assistance needs and to gather and analyze data necessary to comply with the Congressional request to provide additional information on TCUs; and $2 million for endowments under Title III of the Act. Additionally we support $4 million for United 

Tribes Technical College; and a minimum of $1.2 million for Crownpoint Institute 

of Technology; the fiscal year 2004 budget recommendation eliminates funding for 

these two vocational institutions. 

AIHEC’s membership also includes three other TCUs funded under separate authorities within the Interior Appropriations Act, namely: Haskell Indian Nations 

University; Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute; and The Institute for American Indian Arts. AIHEC supports the independently submitted funding requests of 

these institutions. 

BACKGROUND AND FUNDING DISPARITIES

In 1972, six tribally controlled colleges established AIHEC to provide a support 

network for member institutions. Today, AIHEC represents 34 Tribal Colleges and 

Universities in 12 states created specifically to serve the higher education needs of 

American Indians. Collectively, they serve 30,000 full- and part-time students from 

over 250 federally recognized tribes. 
267

The vast majority of TCUs are accredited by independent, regional accreditation 

agencies and like all institutions of higher education, must undergo stringent performance reviews on a periodic basis. In addition to college level programming, tribal colleges provide much needed high school completion (GED), basic remediation, 

job training, college preparatory courses, and adult education. Tribal colleges fulfill 

additional roles within their respective communities functioning as community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career and business centers, economic development 

centers, public meeting places, and childcare centers. An underlying goal of tribal 

colleges is to improve the lives of students through higher education and to move 

American Indians toward self-sufficiency. 

Title I of the Tribal College Act authorizes funding for the basic institutional operating budget of one qualifying institution per federally recognized tribe based on a 

full-time American Indian student enrollment formula. Despite a greatly appreciated increase of almost $2 million in fiscal year 2003, these tribal colleges are currently operating at $3,908 per full-time Indian student count (ISC). This is a decrease of $8 per ISC from the fiscal year 2002 level and still less than two-thirds 

of the authorized level of $6,000 per ISC. This is not simply a matter of appropriations falling short of an authorization; it effectively impedes our institutions from 

having the necessary resources available to provide the educational services afforded 

students at mainstream institutions. 

JUSTIFICATIONS

(a) Tribal colleges provide access to critical postsecondary education opportunities 

that would otherwise be out of reach.—TCU reservations are located in remote 

areas, and their populations are among the poorest in the nation. On average, median household income levels are only about half of the level for the U.S. population 

as a whole. As a result, the cost of attending a mainstream institution, which for 

many reservation communities is several hours away, is prohibitively high, especially when tuition, travel, housing, textbooks, and all other expenses are considered. 

(b) Tribal colleges are producing a new generation of highly trained American Indians as teachers, tribal government leaders, engineers, nurses, computer programmers, and other much-needed professionals.—By teaching the job skills most in demand on their reservations, TCUs are laying a solid foundation for tribal economic 

growth, with benefits for surrounding communities. In contrast to the high rates of 

unemployment, 74 percent of recent tribal college graduates are employed and using 

the skills gained through their educational experiences. Of these graduates, a significant percentage are employed in ‘‘high need’’ occupational areas such as elementary and secondary school teachers, and nurses/health care providers. Just as important, the overwhelming majority of tribal college graduates remain in their tribal 

communities, applying their newly acquired skills and knowledge where they are 

most needed. 

(c) Tribal colleges meet the strict standards of mainstream accreditation boards 

and offer top-quality academic programs.—Several TCUs have attained a ten-year 

accreditation term, the longest term granted for any higher education institution. 

The quality of the colleges’ programs is reflected in the high rates of satisfaction 

reported by their graduates: 91 percent of TCU graduates surveyed reported being 

very satisfied or satisfied with courses in their major field of study and with overall 

instruction. 

(d) Tribal colleges serve as highly effective bridges to four-year postsecondary institutions.—While most TCUs are two-year institutions offering associate’s degrees and 

certificates, their transfer function is significant. A survey of TCU graduates indicated that almost 50 percent continued their education during the year after graduation, with more than 80 percent of those seeking a bachelor’s degree. This compared nationally to about 33 percent of other community college graduates who enroll in further higher education the year after receiving an associate’s degree. The 

overwhelming majority of the continuing TCU graduates felt that the programs at 

TCUs had prepared them well for further education and greatly enhanced their success rates. 

SOME ADDITIONAL FACTS

(a) Enrollment Gains & New TCUs.—Compounding existing funding disparities is 

the fact that although tribal college enrollments have dramatically increased since 

1981, appropriations have increased at a disproportionately low rate. Title I tribal 

colleges have recorded a remarkable 298 percent increase in enrollments from 1981 

to 2002. In fiscal year 2004, two new tribal colleges, Saginaw Chippewa Tribal College, in Mt. Pleasant, Michigan and Tohono O’odham Community College in Sells, 
268

Arizona will be eligible to receive funds under the Tribal College Act. TCUs are in 

many ways victims of their own successes. The dramatic enrollment increases, coupled with a growing number of tribally chartered colleges, have forced Title I colleges to slice an already inadequate pie into even smaller pieces. Our fiscal year 

2004 funding request would increase Title I operating funds to $4,500 per full-time 

equivalent Indian student, still just 75 percent of the $6,000 authorized. 

(b) The Absence of State Funds for Institutional Operations.—While mainstream 

institutions have a foundation of stable state support, TCUs must rely on the Federal government for their operating funds. Because TCUs are located on Federal 

trust lands, states have no obligation to fund them even for the non-Indian stateresident students who account for approximately 20 percent of TCU enrollments. 

Yet, if these same students attended any other public institution in the state, the 

state would provide basic operating funds to the institution. 

(c) Local Tax and Revenue Bases.—TCUs cannot rely on local tax base revenue. 

Although tribes possess the sovereign authority to tax, high reservation poverty 

rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and the lack of strong reservation economies impede the creation of a reservation tax base. In Indian Country, according 

to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 50 percent of the eligible workforce is unemployed. 

In comparison, the current national unemployment rate is 5.8 percent. 

(d) Trust Responsibility.—The emergence of tribal colleges is a direct result of the 

special relationship between American Indian tribes and the Federal government. 

TCUs are founded and chartered by their respective American Indian tribes, which 

hold a special legal relationship with the Federal government, actualized by more 

than 400 treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior Congressional action, and 

the ceding of more than one billion acres of land to the Federal government. Beyond 

the trust responsibility, the fact remains that TCUs are providing a public service 

to all American people that no other institutions of higher education are willing to, 

or can, provide. We are helping the Federal government fulfill its responsibility to 

the American people, particularly in rural America. Despite the fact that only Indian students are counted for the purpose of determining the level of an institution’s 

operating funds, TCUs have open enrollment policies and do not discriminate based 

on race or ethnicity. They are simply and effectively removing barriers that have 

long prevented equal access to higher education for reservation community residents. 

THE PRESIDENT’S BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

The President’s fiscal year 2004 budget recommends a $4 million cut in already 

inadequate funding to operate our tribally chartered reservation based colleges, and 

eliminates funding for our two vocational colleges. Despite an almost $2 million increase in the fiscal year 2003 Appropriation, the 24 colleges funded under Title I 

of the Act will receive just $3,908 per full time equivalent Indian student (ISC), a 

decrease of $8 per ISC, and still under two-thirds the authorized level of $6,000 per 

ISC. The $4 million cut proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget, if enacted, would result in a loss of $733 per ISC for Title I colleges, if Title II funding 

remained level. This slashing of basic operating funds would cause some TCUs to 

no longer be able to meet minimum requirements for stable funding needed to pay 

overhead and faculty/staff salaries. This would not only jeopardize their accreditation status but would most likely force some of the colleges close their doors. 

AIHEC’S APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

We respectfully request a total appropriation of $52.2 million for our Tribal College Act programs. Of that amount our first priority is $49,666,000 for Titles I and 

II of the Tribal College Act; of which, $39,528,000 would be for Title I grants and 

$10,138,000 would be allocated for Title II. This request is an increase of $7,650,000 

over the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level, and $11,637,000 over the President’s 

fiscal year 2004 budget request. This increase would bring funding for the basic operations of our Title I colleges, including our two new colleges, Saginaw Chippewa 

Tribal College (Michigan) and Tohono O’odham Community College (Arizona), to 

$4,500 per ISC, which still represents just 75 percent of the $6,000 authorized. Additionally, we seek $500,000 for technical assistance, an increase of $386,000 over 

fiscal year 2003 and the President’s request, to help address ever emerging technical 

assistance needs and to fund data collection and analysis necessary to comply with 

the Congressional requests for additional information on TCU operations, and $2 

million for endowments under Title III of the Act. 

For our two tribally controlled vocational institutions, we support $4 million for 

United Tribes Technical College; and a minimum of $1.2 million for Crownpoint In-
269

stitute of Technology, to restore and expand the funding for these programs that the 

fiscal year 2004 budget recommends eliminating. 

CONCLUSION

Tribal colleges are bringing education to thousands of American Indians. The 

modest Federal investment in the TCUs has paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic development, and continuation of this investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense. We very much need your help to sustain 

and grow our programs and achieve our missions. 

Thank you for your past and continued support of the nation’s Tribal Colleges and 

Universities and your consideration of our fiscal year 2004 appropriations requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK

INDIAN RESERVATION

INTRODUCTION

The Fort Peck Tribes are pleased to present testimony on the fiscal year 2004 BIA 

and IHS Budget. 

TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATIONS

The Tribal Priority Allocations system is intended to give tribes an additional 

measure of flexibility in determining how to use available funds to best meet local 

needs. However, the Administration has requested only a small increase of $2.1 million for programs under TPA. While we support this request, it would still fall far 

short of allowing the Fort Peck Tribes to meet the needs of our people in key areas 

including, education, agriculture and tribal courts. We urge the Congress to do all 

it can to increase TPA above the level requested by the President. 

In particular, we are very concerned with the Administration’s failure to restore 

last year’s $4 million cut in General Assistance funding. This cut is premised on a 

purported decline in caseloads. It is difficult to believe this is in fact true on a national level, since we at Fort Peck have experienced an increase in requests for General Assistance. This increase is largely the result of the Welfare Reform law and 

the strict work and benefit restrictions placed on individuals. People, who have had 

the benefits terminated, are returning home to take advantage of tribal work, educational and housing programs. As a result, the GA shortfall at Fort Peck alone is 

$800,000. Thus, as Congress seeks to reauthorize the Welfare Reform law we would 

urge the Subcommittee not to cut GA, which is an important part of tribal assistant 

programs. 

EDUCATION

Higher Education 

We urge the Committee to support the education needs of Indian people. The 

President’s budget requests $28 million for scholarships for Indian students to attend accredited post-secondary schools. Obtaining a degree in higher education—

particularly for those individuals from families that have not previously sent anyone 

to college—takes courage and often considerable personal sacrifice. We believe it is 

our responsibility to support the efforts of our people to attend college. The Tribes 

provide scholarship funds available through the BIA program. However, the current 

levels of funding are already far too inadequate. For example, this year the Tribes 

have identified 230 students who are eligible for scholarship benefits for higher education but who cannot be served because of lack of funding. The BIA itself reports 

that the level of unmet requests for scholarships nationwide has increased steadily 

over the last three years. 

Tribal Colleges 

We oppose the Administration’s proposal to cut tribal colleges funding by $4 million. The twenty-six tribal colleges are important institutions in the remote tribal 

communities that they serve. On our Reservation, we operate the Fort Peck Tribal 

College, a fully accredited institution, offering Associate Degrees in arts, science and 

applied sciences. 

The College offers our students an opportunity to obtain a higher education without having to leave their homes and families. This is critical for many of our students, especially our single parent students, who need family members to provide 

child care. These students do not have the resources or the network to attend school 
270

in Billings or Great Falls and if it weren’t for our Tribal College they would have 

no opportunity to improve their lives, through higher education. 

We strongly urge the Subcommittee to increase funding for this vital program 

that is improving the lives of Indian people. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

The President’s budget requests a total of $3.6 billion for IHS services and construction (including the $50 million funded through the mandatory special diabetes 

program.) While this represents an increase on paper, it will not translate into any 

program improvements or expansions. This increase does not even keep pace with 

medical inflation rates. 

The Federal Government has a trust responsibility to provide health care to Native Americans, an obligation that was paid with millions of acres of land and resources. This Federal responsibility has been reaffirmed through treaties, legislation, executive orders and policies by Congress and Presidential Administrations. 

The Indian Health Service budget must include consideration for medical inflation, 

population increases and mandatory payroll increase. The IHS has adsorbed over 

one billion dollars in mandatory cost increases over the past 10 years causing the 

loss of purchasing power that has led to insufficient funding for medical services 

putting lives and health of Native people at risk. This is not acceptable. The same 

allowance given to federal programs, Medicaid and Medicare, for inflation and population adjustments should be applied to the IHS fiscal year 2004 Budget. 

The health indicators in Indian communities consistently demonstrate higher infant mortality, teenage suicide, accident, alcoholism, diabetes, and heart disease 

rates among Indian people when compared with other minorities and the general 

American population. Yet, money directed to health care, especially preventative 

care, such as routine checkups and health education, that clearly improve the quality of life and help avoid more expensive health care costs in the future is not included in the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. This is unacceptable. 

Special Diabetes Study-$316,000 Request 

Diabetes is an epidemic on the Fort Peck Reservation. The rate of heart disease, 

amputations, blindness, kidney failure and other diabetic related complications are 

growing at an accelerated rate, while the age of onset becomes younger every year. 

The death rate for Indian people from diabetes is nearly three times higher than 

non-native people. 

To begin to combat this problem that is threatening the future of our community, 

the Fort Peck Tribes request an earmark of $316,000 to implement the first year 

of a five year epidemiological study of the impact of a more traditional diet on the 

diabetics. Preliminary studies show that bison meat is a natural inducer of insulin 

production in the body. In addition, bison meat is high in protein and low in fat, 

which is the ideal diet choice for diabetics 

The Tribes propose to establish a study population of 250 people—125 would be 

diagnosed diabetics and 125 would be individuals with an established diagnosis of 

Insulin Resistance Syndrome. All study participants will be evaluated by a physician at a baseline and thereafter quarterly. The Tribes propose to provide buffalo 

meat to these individuals on a weekly basis. As a part of the study, participants 

will receive an orientation other healthy benefits of Bison meat, including how to 

prepare healthy bison dishes and how to incorporate other healthy lifestyle changes 

to improve their condition such as increased exercise, weight control and overall 

change of diet. The study groups will be evaluated quarterly by a physician and receive education by the nurse educator and dietitian for weight, waist to hip ratio, 

comprehensive chemistry, magnesium levels, lipid profiles, HgbAIC, fasting insulin 

levels, urinalysis, A/C ratios and aliquots. 

The Tribes estimate that it will require 35 buffalo per year to provide sufficient 

meat to the study participants. The initial term of the study would be for five years.

First year costs .................................................................................................................................................... $316,000 

Purchase of Bison Meat .............................................................................................................................. 95,000 

Labs for controlled/Non-controlled Group ................................................................................................... 52,000 

Data analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 45,000 

Office equipment ......................................................................................................................................... 15,000 

Equipment for processing meat ................................................................................................................. 20,000 

Physician, Nurse Educator, Dietitian .......................................................................................................... 35,000 

Laboratory technician .................................................................................................................................. 24,000 

Administrative Coordinator ......................................................................................................................... 30,000 
271

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF NAVAJO COMMUNITY CONTROLLED

SCHOOL BOARDS

SUMMARY OF ANCCSB’S REQUESTS, IN PRIORITY ORDER 

[In millions of dollars] 

Administrative Cost Grants—continuing tribally-operated schools ....................................................................... 61.5 

Administrative Cost Grants—first-year conversion schools ................................................................................... 3.0 

Student Transportation ............................................................................................................................................ 55 

Indian School Equalization Formula ........................................................................................................................ ( 1 ) 

Facilities Operations ................................................................................................................................................ 70

Facilities Improvement and Repair .......................................................................................................................... 158 

1 $4,000/WSU for basic program—(net after special education costs). 

This preliminary statement of the Association of Navajo Community Controlled 

School Boards (ANCCSB) is submitted on behalf of its 16 member school boards who 

operate BIA-funded schools on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona and New Mexico 

under contracts or grants from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. We will supplement 

our comments after the fiscal year 2004 BIA detailed budget justification is released. The issues we discuss below and on which we provide our recommendations 

are presented in priority order. 

Administrative Cost Grants.—We strongly supported the NCLBA provision that 

requires the Bureau to create a separate Administrative Cost (AC) Grants fund to 

cover the first-year AC Grant needs of schools that newly convert to tribal operation. The BIA budget recommends $3 million for this separate fund. 

The amount requested for AC Grants for continuing tribally-operated schools is, 

however, alarmingly inadequate to meet the needs of these schools. The amount requested for these schools is only $46,181,000. At this level, it will be impossible for 

BIA to supply even 75 percent of the AC Grant needs of these ongoing tribally-operated schools. This budget request is not responsive to the increasing costs of annual 

financial audits, liability insurance, and salaries for certified administrators and 

business managers. 

Recommendation.—We recommend that $61.5 million be supplied to meet 100 percent of need for on-going tribally-operated schools, and concur with the BIA’s request for an additional $3 million to cover the first-year costs of schools who convert 

to tribal operation in SY 2004–2005. We also recommend that Congress direct that 

any funds remaining from $3 million, will be transferred to and distributed to meet 

the AC Grant needs of on-going contracts and grants. 

Student Transportation.—We are extremely disappointed that the Administration 

once again requests only a minimal increase of $1.1 million for our school transportation system. According to the most recent national report, the average expenditure 

for public schools was $2.97/mile six years ago but, during SY 2002–2003, BIA 

schools received only $2.17/mile. The budget request of $38.6 million, which will be 

used in SY 2004–2005, will barely enable the BIA to pay at the $2.17/mile range 

when increased fuel costs and vehicle maintenance costs are taken into account. 

There are a host of transportation costs our schools must budget for that do not 

impact other school systems, such as (1) approximately 90 percent of the roads on 

the Navajo reservation are unimproved and unpaved—resulting in increased maintenance and repair costs, and (2) oftentimes the authorized maintenance and repair 

facilities are not located nearby, and in some instances result in roundtrips of over 

250 miles. We are also experiencing rising fuel costs, which have recently averaged 

$1.90–2.00/gallon. Furthermore, retaining CDL certified bus drivers is always difficult due to our inability to offer competitive, full-time positions. 

Congress should be aware that the transportation formula does not take into consideration mileage associated with extra-curricular activities (athletics, educational 

field trips, etc.), after-school activities, or trips for repairs and maintenance. We 

must cover these expenses from our instructional funds. The ‘‘student transportation’’ funds are only used for the daily bus runs associated with getting students 

to/from school, and, in fact, the amount we receive for this purpose is so inadequate 

that we must subsidize bus costs from instructional funds. 

Recommendation.—We urge that Congress provide student transportation funding 

at $3.00/mile which we believe will require a $55 million appropriation. We also request that Congress direct the BIA to amend the transportation formula to include 

factors for isolation and mileage related to extra-curricular activities. 

Indian School Equalization Formula (ISEF).—The ANCCSB schools were alarmed 

to learn that only a small increase in ISEF program funds is requested for fiscal 

year 2004. Coupled with the Administration’s rescission of more than $700,000 from 
272

the ISEF in the fiscal year 2003 budget, the new budget request will not even be 

sufficient for us to cover the inflation rate or the additional costs such as School 

Board training mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLBA). 

ISEF is the primary source of funds for the instructional and residential programs 

at the 185 schools and dormitories in the BIA system. We face significant costs connected with increasing instructional program costs, teacher recruitment, and curriculum development just to maintain our current programs, let alone cover the 

costs associated with the many additional requirements of the NCLBA. 

Under the NCLBA, we are required to hire only highly qualified teachers and 

paraprofessionals, provide increased professional development and parent involvement activities, and ensure adequate yearly student progress—which is dependent 

upon curriculum alignment, utilization of ‘‘research-based’’ materials and methods, 

and a host of other factors. Due to the remoteness of many of our schools, staff recruitment and retention remains a tremendous challenge. We cannot assure the 

availability of professional staff with the required certification, or paraprofessionals 

with AA degrees, unless we have the financial resources to recruit/retain personnel 

with these credentials. Our Indian schools must compete with public school districts 

for highly qualified personnel, but we cannot survive this competition unless we can 

offer competitive salaries and benefits. 

Important technical change regarding the ISEF ‘‘weighted student unit’’ system!— It is essential that Congress be aware that BIA changed the way student ‘‘weights’’ 

are counted under the ISEF in SY 2002–2003. The fiscal year 2004 budget request 

will be the first one impacted by this change, but we do not know if BIA will fully 

describe what has taken place and the additional calculations that are needed to 

enable Congress to properly evaluate the fiscal year 2004 budget request for ISEF. 

The key changes are these: BIA has eliminated from the ISEF program any weights 

for special education students. Under the previous system, schools received extra 

ISEF ‘‘weights’’ for services they supply to special education students; these weights 

generated funds for the school specifically for special education services. In addition, 

BIA changed the weights assigned to each grade level for students in the basic instructional program and in the Gifted & Talented program. 

In the past, we and Congress have been able to evaluate an ISEF budget request 

by comparing the prior year’s amount of funding for each ‘‘weighted student unit’’ 

(WSU) with the WSU amount that would be produced by the new proposed budget. 

Such a comparison is no longer meaningful, however, since the weighting factors 

have been altered. 

Under the new system, BIA now requires that a school use 15 percent of its ISEF 

dollars to pay for special education services. If its special education needs exceed 

this amount, the school can apply for supplemental dollars under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Program. In the past, the school applied for 

IDEA funds after using the ISEF funds it attracted through the add-on weights 

under the ISEF. 

This change will produce a different number of overall ‘‘weighted student units’’ 

in the BIA school system, and a different relative value of each WSU. It is important to know this so that Congress can determine whether the WSU base amount 

is actually increasing at a rate needed to keep pace with instructional costs in the 

BIA system. The BIA estimates that the fiscal year 2004 amount requested will result in a $4,035 WSU for SY 2004–2005. However, if the BIA has not allowed for 

the 15 percent reduction for special education services, the actual amount would be 

$3,429/WSU. This amount would be $525 less than the SY 2003–2004 WSU amount. 

Recommendation.—If our schools are to enhance the educational programs to ensure our students make adequate yearly progress and meet the requirements established in the No Child Left Behind Act, we urge that Congress provide an amount 

that would result in at least $4,000 per WSU for the basic instructional program—

that is, the amount of ISEF funds devoted to basic instructional programs after the 

15 percent that must be devoted to special education services is taken off the top. 

Facilities Operations.—This account must cover the cost of utilities, heating fuel, 

janitorial, communications, refuse collection, water/sewer, fire protection, pest control, and technology maintenance. Funding for this program is based on the total 

square feet of education space. 

The ANCCSB schools have several concerns regarding the proposed $57.8 million 

requested for fiscal year 2004, which represents only a $2 million increase over fiscal year 2003. It is evident that fuel and other utility costs are steadily increasing, 

yet funds for basic school operating costs have only covered 60 percent to 70 percent 

of the actual costs the schools incur. The BIA-requested $2 million increase will 

barely enable schools to continue at their current level of shortfall. Nearly half of 

all BIA schools are more than 30 years old, and nearly 15 percent are more than 

50 years old, which means it costs substantially more to operate and maintain these 
273

1General Accounting Office, BIA and DOD Schools: Student Achievement and Other Characteristics Often Differ from Public Schools’, GAO–01–934 (September 2001). 2 Id. at page 23. 

outdated facilities. A recent GAO study 1 confirmed that BIA schools are generally 

in poorer physical condition, have more unsatisfactory environmental factors, more 

often lack key facilities requirements for education reform, and are less able to support computer and communications technology. 

The safety of our students and our desire to provide an adequate learning environment are not the only reasons the ANCCSB schools believe additional Facilities 

Operations funds are necessary. One of our primary concerns is that in order to 

meet the academic requirements of the NCLBA, ANCCSB schools plan to implement 

year-round schooling or provide a summer school session. The extended year will result in additional maintenance, utilities, and staff costs. Other concerns include the 

following: costs for utilities, propane, electricity, sewage, and water purchased from 

the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority has increased 3 percent in the past year; many 

of our schools lack adequate fire protection but must rely on fire trucks located 50–

70 miles away; security costs have increased due to the national security threat (requiring school security to be on alert 24 hours/day) and the planned extended school 

year. Also, under the NCLBA, the BIA is required to pass on to the schools all funds 

appropriated for facilities operation and maintenance, but we believe the agency is 

not generating the information we need to assure that this directive is carried out. 

In the past, despite Congressional orders to the contrary, BIA has ‘‘skimmed’’ funds 

from the appropriation to support federal bureaucrat salaries. Now that the NCLBA 

has expressly prohibited this practice, schools and the Appropriations Committees 

need a mechanism to assure that the law is being followed. We ask the Appropriations Committees to obtain an assurance from BIA that it has ceased to retain any 

facilities operation and maintenance funds at the agency level. 

Recommendation.—Please demand that the BIA supply information on the 

amount that would be needed to fully fund the formula used to calculate the amount 

of facilities operation and maintenance funds needed by each school in the system. 

Armed with this data, the Congress should then appropriate that sum in order that 

these schools can be properly operated and maintained. 

Replacement Schools Construction.—The ANCCSB schools are pleased that the 

BIA wants to start six replacement school construction projects in fiscal year 2004. 

If this recommendation is followed, nearly all schools on the existing Priority List 

will have been funded. 

Construction of new schools remains a critical need for the BIA system, and particularly schools on the Navajo Reservation. For example, the Lukachukai Community on the Navajo Reservation continues to educate its children in dilapidated, unsafe buildings that are 10∂ years beyond their useful life, are not in compliance 

with handicapped accessibility codes, are overcrowded and lack the space needed to 

conform to the dictates of the No Child Left Behind Act’s instructional minimums, 

and contain a variety of health/safety code violations. We were therefore extremely 

disappointed that Lukachukai was not included on the long-awaited Priority List 

compiled from the applications filed some 18 months ago but only recently finalized 

by the BIA. 

Facilities Improvement & Repair Program.—We are deeply concerned that the fiscal year 2004 budget request would reduce the education Facilities Improvement & 

Repair (FI&R) Program by over $16 million in light of the tremendous backlog of 

needed school repairs—reported to be over $960 million in a recent General Accounting Office report.2

BIA attempts to justify the cut in FI&R funding by asserting that funding was 

transferred to the replacement school construction account. Although additional 

funds for replacement of unsafe schools is most welcome, it means that $16 million 

worth of repair work needed at many schools will be devoted to possibly constructing one additional school! While the repair backlog remains high, it is equally 

important that the students who attend schools throughout the system are provided 

much-needed health, safety and environmental improvements, utility upgrades, and 

additional classrooms. 

Recommendation.—At a minimum, Congress should restore the $16.2 million BIA 

proposes to cut from the FI&R program. To properly fulfill its responsibility to Indian students, this account should be increased by some $10 million in fiscal year 

2004. 

Negotiated Rulemaking.—Our final comment is related to the recently enacted fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The ANCCSB schools are disheartened 

by the inclusion of bill language that would allow BIA to use the ISEP Contingency 

Funds to pay the costs of the negotiated rulemaking to prepare regulations required 
274

by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA). This authority to re-direct much-needed 

funds for school programs was not what was provided in the NCLBA. Instead, the 

NCLBA requires the Secretary of the Interior to cover the costs of the negotiated 

rulemaking process through the Department’s general administration funds. The 

ISEP Contingency Funds are meant to be used only for school-related emergencies, 

and any unused funds remaining at the end of the school year are to be apportioned 

to the schools for use in instructional programs. Allowing the Secretary to use the 

Contingency Funds in any other manner not only violates the NCLBA but would 

also mean less funds to purchase essential materials for our schools such as textbooks and other school supplies. 

Recommendation.—We request that Congress strongly urge the Secretary to follow the mandate of the NCLBA and use funds from the Department’s general administration funds to pay the expenses for negotiated rulemaking instead of the 

ISEP Contingency Funds. 

This statement of the Association of Navajo Community Controlled School Board 

is sponsored by the following tribally-operated member schools of the Navajo Nation: 

1. Stanley Herrera, President Alamo Navajo School Board 

2. Wilson Gilmore, President Black Mesa Community School, Inc. 

3. George Tolth, President Borrego Pass Community School, Inc. 

4. Beverly Becenti-Pigman, President Kayenta Community School, Inc. 

5. Marge Begay, President Lukachukai Community School, Inc. 

6. Ross Smallcanyon, President Naa Tsis’ Aan Community School, Inc. 

7. Edison Wauneka, President Navajo Preparatory School, Inc. 

8. Joseph Dedman, President Nazlini Community School, Inc. 

9. Lorenzo Yazzie, President Pinon Community School, Inc. 

10. Jamie Henio, President Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. 

11. Johnny Decheeny, President Rock Point Community School, Inc. 

12. Betty Dailey, President Rough Rock Community School, Inc. 

13. Eva Stokely, President Shiprock Alternative Schools, Inc. 

14. William Lynch, President Wide Ruins Community School, Inc. 

15. Marie Brady, President Winslow Residential Hall, Inc. 

16. Sarah J. Attakai, President Jeehdeez’a Academy, Inc. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHUGACH REGIONAL RESOURCES COMMISSION

We appreciate the opportunity to provide this written testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies. The Chugach Regional 

Resources Commission (CRRC), a non-profit Alaska Native coalition for managing 

tribal natural resources, with its seven member Tribes located in the Prince William 

Sound and Lower Cook Inlet, respectfully requests as our first priority restoration 

of its base funding of $350,000 from the fiscal year 2004 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

budget, Fish, Wildlife and Parks Program. 

The Tribes of the Chugach Region, who make up the Chugach Regional Resources 

Commission, appreciate the support of the Subcommittee in reinstating our fiscal 

year 2003 funding which was zeroed out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Unfortunately, the Administration has once again zeroed out our funding of the President’s 

proposed BIA fiscal year 2004 budget. Therefore, we are respectfully requesting the 

support of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to restore the $350,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal year 2004 Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks budget earmarked for CRRC and add it to the base budget as 

permanent funding. In addition, we are requesting a $250,000 increase for the region-wide mariculture program and an additional $250,000 increase for the education and training program described below. 

Until fiscal year 2003, this funding had been included in the BIA’s Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks budget for the past 13 years. The mission of CRRC is to work with our 

seven member Tribes to promote and develop sound economic resource basedprojects and to work collectively to address any natural resource and environmentally related issues that affect the Native people of the Chugach Region. 

This funding, over the past 13 years, has supported the development and operation of many programs that have assisted communities in providing meaningful 

employment opportunities as well as valuable services and products to the people 

of the State of Alaska. If this funding is not restored, 35 Native people in the Chugach Region will lose their jobs. With the scarcity of employment opportunities in 

rural Alaska, the impact of approximately six families per village losing this income 

in a village with an average population of 100, strikes a devastating blow to the 

local community economy. In addition, these 20 families will create a much larger 
275

burden on state and federal financial resources as they will be forced to depend 

upon state and federal welfare programs to provide funding for necessary living expenses. This funding also supports the base operating expenses of CRRC, and without it, our work will not be able to continue. A summary of some of these programs 

supported by this funding is provided to give you a better understanding of the integral role this funding plays in Tribal community development. 

The Port Graham Salmon Hatchery has been in operation since 1990, and raises 

sockeye, pink, and coho salmon. CRRC provided Port Graham with the technical 

and administrative assistance necessary to build the hatchery program. The hatchery’s goal is to rebuild local pink salmon runs and provide economic opportunities 

for village residents. CRRC has funded the hatchery operations for many years and 

employed the hatchery staff consisting of 5–7 full time and seasonal employees. 

The original hatchery was located in the net loft of the salmon cannery building. 

This building was completely destroyed by a fire in January of 1998. CRRC worked 

closely with the Port Graham Village Council to obtain funding and help to build 

a new hatchery. The new hatchery was completed in 2000 and is now in the process 

of bringing salmon production to full capacity, which is 110 million pink salmon 

eggs, 5 million sockeye salmon eggs and 2 million coho salmon eggs. The hatchery 

currently produces local stock pink and coho salmon and incubates sockeye salmon 

eggs for the nearby Native Village of Nanwalek. The hatchery is expecting about 

300,000 adult pink salmon to return this year, which will be enough to fill it to capacity. Annual adult returns are expected to increase to about 3 million pink salmon 

beginning in 2004 and 100,000 to 200,000 sockeye salmon beginning in 2006. Reinstatement of the fiscal year 2004 funding will allow to continue with its needed investment in the hatchery program and to help develop a a value added processing 

component to the local processing plant which is owned and operated by the Port 

Graham Corporation. 

The Nanwalek Sockeye Enhancement Program (NSEP) was also initiated in 1990. 

CRRC provided funding and technical and administrative assistance to develop a 

sockeye smolt stocking program that would supplement wild production and help rebuild the depleted English Bay sockeye run. The Nanwalek IRA Council operates 

the project with administration and support coming from CRRC. It is the only program of its kind currently permitted in the State of Alaska and employs one full 

time and ten seasonal workers. The heart of the project consists of rearing Port 

Graham hatchery produced fry to smolt size in English Bay Lakes and releasing 

them in the lakes to migrate out to sea and return as adults. Rearing operations 

commenced in 1991 and have occurred annually since that time. Over two and a 

half million sockeye smolts have been released into the English Bay Lakes since 

project inception. This has produced over 220,000 adult sockeye salmon that have 

returned to the English Bay River and associated fisheries. Fish from this project 

allowed for the reopening of the subsistence fishery in 1996 and a limited commercial fishery in 1997. 

This important program is expected to reach a peak production of about 150,000 

adult sockeye salmon returning every year beginning in 2007. English Bay River 

sockeye salmon are a principal source of subsistence food and commercial fishing income for the Nanwalek and the nearby Port Graham villages. CRRC continues to 

provide consulting and technical assistance for this project that will help provide a 

sustainable economic base for the village of Nanwalek. 

The Qutekcak Shellfish Hatchery in Seward has been a major accomplishment for 

both the Qutekcak Native Tribe and CRRC. The operation began in a small pilot 

hatchery with funding provided from CRRC BIA funds, and is now operating out 

of a new state-of-the-art facility, spawning, hatching, and rearing littleneck clams, 

Pacific oysters and geoducks for sale to shellfish farms in Alaska and elsewhere. 

This hatchery is now operated by the Tribe under a contract with the City of Seward, and employs 4 full time employees. This is the only shellfish hatchery in the 

State of Alaska, and has the capacity to serve all shellfish farms in the state. The 

Tribal hatchery staff is currently conducting research on the culture techniques of 

Purple-hinged Rock Scallops and Cockles. CRRC has helped fund hatchery research 

and development, which would be sharply curtailed without this support. This 

would devastate not only the Tribal hatchery, but the shellfish farmers in Alaska 

as well who depend upon seed for their own operations. One condition of the hatchery operating contract stipulated that the Tribe put up $100,000 bond to cover the 

cost of mothballing the hatchery should the Tribe pull out and no one else found 

to take its place. Operating costs are approximately $340,000 per year for the hatchery. Without the BIA funding, hatchery operations would have to be cut back. This 

would reduce seed production that, in turn, would reduce income. This likely would 

force the Tribe to back out of its operating contract. This would mean that some 

or all of its $100,000 bond would be forfeited if no one else could be found to take 
276

over hatchery operations. Closing the hatchery would also doom the state’s 

mariculture industry; reducing it to a very small number of farmers supplying oysters to the tourists. 

The Tatitlek IRA Council has operated the Alutiiq Pride Oyster Farm since 1992 

and is one of those farms that depend upon seed from the Qutekcak Shellfish Hatchery for their operation. The oyster farm has produced some of the best oysters in 

the country and is well known throughout Alaska. The operation sells their product 

primarily in Anchorage at this time, marketing approximately 200–300 dozen per 

week. Funding for this project is slowly being phased out as their profit margin increases. Sales currently account for about $80,000 of its $145,000 budget. About 

$35,000 of the remainder comes from the CRRC’s BIA natural resources program 

and the rest from village funding sources. This is one of the bigger mariculture operations in the state, providing 3 full time and several part time employment opportunities for Tribal members. The Tribe recently completed construction of a processing 

facility to process the oysters and prepare them for shipping. Losing the BIA funding would likely result in a reduction in employment and production, and possibly 

the end of the program. This in turn would hurt the Qutekcak shellfish hatchery 

since Tatitlek is one of the hatchery’s bigger customers. 

In a related project, the Chenega IRA Council operates the Chenega Floating 

Nursery System for oysters and other shellfish in Chenega Bay. With this nursery 

system, they are able to raise shellfish to a size larger than what can legally be imported into Alaska. The ability to purchase larger seed means shorter grow-out time, 

and higher profitability for the shellfish farms. So, this program fills a niche in the 

shellfish market that did not exist anywhere in the state prior to its inception. This 

program employs one full time community member. 

In addition to these projects, this funding has also supported the development of 

Tribal Natural Resource Programs in the region in an effort to be more meaningfully involved in the natural resource management projects and decisions that affect 

the Tribes’ traditional subsistence lifestyle. We request an increase of $250,000 per 

year for the next four years, to develop a model technical education and training 

in natural resource management to allow for increased and meaningful tribal involvement in the management of subsistence resources in cooperation with federal 

and state management agencies. 

Active participation by the Tribes in such current initiatives as the Exxon Valdez 

Trustee Council’s Gulf Ecosystem Monitoring Program and the federal subsistence 

fisheries management projects occurring in traditional use areas is vital to the overall success of each of these programs. Funding from this initial appropriation also 

supports the base operations of the organization, such as salaries, travel, telephone, 

office space, office supplies, and professional biological assistance, which are vital 

to the CRRC’s very existence. We have been very successful at utilizing these funds 

to use as match for other grants as well, oftentimes doubling or even tripling the 

initial investment. 

As you can see, this funding has played an integral role in allowing CRRC to develop and implement important community-based programs such as those described 

above. The over 35 Native people employed under this funding, the majority of 

which are located in the villages, will lose their jobs if this funding is not restored; 

CRRC will be without operating funds, thus unable to facilitate the development of 

local community economies, and Tribes will no longer have a collective voice to address the environmental and resource issues that affect their lives. 

We are respectfully requesting the Committee’s support to restore the original 

amount of $350,000 to the BIA Fish, Wildlife and Parks Budget for the Chugach 

Regional Resources Commission and make it part of the recurring base budget. Due 

to the magnitude of this program to the people of the Chugach, as well as its far 

reaching impacts and high cost to benefit ratio, we are also requesting that this 

funding be included in the budget as part of the permanent base. We believe that 

making our funding a part of the permanent base will alleviate the need for us to 

spend what little funding we have on getting our BIA funding restored rather than 

on meaningful projects that will benefit the communities. We also ask for the Committee’s support for our requested increase of $500,000 to enhance our programs. 

In a related matter, we also support the restoration of funds to other Tribal fish 

and wildlife programs that were cut from the BIA budget, including $100,000 to the 

Alaska Sea Otter and Stellar Sea Lion Commission, $454,000 to the Bison Restoration Program, $593,000 in Wetlands/Waterfowl Management, and $320,000 in Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights for Tribal management of shellfish resources and 

associated treaty harvest in the Northwest Region. 

Once again, we ask the Committee to restore these funds in behalf of the Native 

people of the Chugach Region and thank you for your support of our programs, as 

well as this opportunity to provide our written testimony. If you have any questions, 
277

please feel free to contact me at 907/284–2212 or Patty Brown-Schwalenberg, Executive Director, at 907/562–6647. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE

COMMUNITY OF OREGON

Mr. Chairman, I am Cheryle A. Kennedy, Tribal Council Chairwoman of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon. I hereby submit this 

testimony regarding Bureau of Indian Affairs fiscal year 2004 appropriations to the 

House Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations with the following requests: 

(1) Restore BIA Endangered Species Act funding to $3.1 million and direct that 

$1.7 million of the funds be utilized among Northwest tribes, as they were in fiscal 

year 2002, to manage for ESA listed species, including the northern spotted owl, 

marbled murrelet, and steelhead. 

(2) Add $115,000 to BIA Other Recurring Programs, Natural Resources, Wildlife 

and Parks, for a Grand Ronde study of the decline of Roosevelt Elk and its habitat 

on and around our Reservation. 

The Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde were restored to federal recognition by 

Act of Congress in 1983. Today, we have close to 4,800 members centered in the 

Oregon community of Grand Ronde is western Polk County, but also dispersed 

throughout the United States. In the adjacent hills of Oregon’s Coast Range of 

Mountains is our 10,052 acres of Reservation timberland, established by a separate 

1988 Act of Congress. 

(1) Restore BIA Endangered Species funding (in Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management) to $3.1 million and direct that $1.7 million of the funds be 

utilized among Northwest tribes, as they were in fiscal year 2002, to manage for 

ESA listed species, including the northern spotted owl, the marbled Murrelet, and 

steelhead. 

In fiscal year 1992, at the request of Grand Ronde and other Northwest tribes, 

Congress added $1.4 million to the BIA Forestry budget for management of the 

northern spotted owl, with had become listed under the Endangered Species Act. In 

subsequent years, BIA—over the objections of tribes—combined the northern spotted owl funding with other funds to reintroduce the Black Footed Ferret on the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation and established a separate ESA line item. By fiscal 

year 2002, this ESA line item totaled $3 million, including $1.6 million for Northwest tribes affected by the northern spotted owl and $1.3 million for the ferret. In 

fiscal year 2003, BIA proposed to eliminate all of these funds except for $197,000, 

which they proposed to keep for Central Office staff. Responding to tribal objections, 

Congress restored the ESA line item to about $2,697,000. At this point, we do not 

know what we will receive under this fiscal year 2003 funding. For fiscal year 2004, 

the BIA reportedly is requesting $2,198,000 for the ESA line item. Again, at this 

point, we do not know how the BIA is proposing to spend the $2,198,000. However, 

we are concerned that for both fiscal year 2003 and for fiscal year 2004, funding 

for the Grand Ronde Tribe’s ESA compliance program will fall, imperiling our ability to meet the ESA’s management requirements. 

To maintain the Grand Ronde Tribe’s goal of complying with the Endangered Species Act, our Tribe will need to continue surveys for 13 listed species that can, or 

do, occur in the region of our Reservation. Our participation in the ESA program, 

in the fiscal year 2002 amount of $68,600, will be used to pay for 128 hours of staff 

time for the survey and monitoring of marbled murrelets, 120 hours for the survey 

and monitoring of the northern spotted owl, 966 hours of monitoring for steelhead 

trout, and 224 hours for the survey and monitoring of Nelson’s checkermallow. It 

will also construct an adult steelhead monitoring station, conduct RADAR survey 

for marbled murrelets, and conduct filed inspections for other listed species. 

The loss or reduction of these funds will directly and immediately hinder our ability to comply with the Endangered Species Act, which in turn could threaten our 

ability to manage our forest, including the commercial harvest upon which we depend. We urge the Committee not to let this happen by maintaining these funds 

and their purpose. It was the affected Northwest tribes, including our Tribe, that 

initially secured these funds, not the BIA. Further, BIA has never sought any other 

funds for Endangered Species management, which makes BIA’s unilateral efforts to 

either eliminate these funds or divert them to some other use particularly troubling. 

Accordingly, we ask that the Committee not allow this to happen, and that you fully 

restore the ESA item funding to $3.1 million, with $1.7 million dedicated to affected 

Northwest tribes. 
278

(2) Add $115,000 to BIA Other Recurring Programs, Natural Resources, Wildlife 

and Parks, for a Grand Ronde study of the decline of Roosevelt Elk and its habitat 

on and around our Reservation. 

The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon requests your support of the addition of $115,000.00 to Wildlife and Parks in the BIA’s Other Recurring Programs, Natural Resources budget to study the habitat use and distribution of Roosevelt Elk on and around our Reservation lands. Elk are an important 

cultural, natural, and subsistence resource for members of the Grand Ronde Tribes. 

Tribal members are authorized by the Tribal government, the State of Oregon, and 

the federal government to hunt elk on and around Reservation lands within the 

Trask Wildlife Management Unit. 

Elk populations in the Trask Unit are below state management objectives and 

tribal harvest rates have declined over the last 10 years. Approximately 46 percent 

of the Trask Unit is public land and there is a perception among many hunters that 

these lands are not providing quality elk habitat due to changes in management 

policies. The Tribes would like to gather data on elk distribution and use of habitat 

to learn how the available habitat is affecting elk populations. Information learned 

from the study would allow the Tribes, the State of Oregon, and other land managers and owners to make informed decisions regarding management of elk habitats 

and populations, with the goal of improving elk habitat to allow for sustainable harvest of elk for current and future generations. While there is clear need for research 

and data, no other agencies, state or federal, are currently conducting elk research 

on or near the Reservation. 

The Tribe’s Natural Resources Division would manage the project, track the collared elk for two years, and analyze the data. The funding requested would be used 

to obtain GPS (global positioning system) tracking collars, tracking equipment, and 

to capture (using a helicopter) and collar the elk. For this undertaking, we request 

$115,000. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our fiscal year 2004 testimony. We hope the Committee will be able to accommodate our requests. If you have any questions, please 

let us know. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM SPRINGS

RESERVATION

Mr. Chairman, I, Olney Patt, Jr., Chairman of the Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, hereby submit this fiscal year 2004 testimony 

regarding Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Office of the Special Trustee, and Indian 

Health Service funding for fiscal year 2004. In summary, the Warm Springs requests are: 

(1) Add $2 million to BIA TPA Forestry designated for Warm Springs (BIA Tribal 

Priority Allocations, Resources Management). 

(2) Restore BIA ESA funding to $3.1 million, with $1.8 million for Northwest tribal ESA compliance activities, including $300,000 for Warm Springs (BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management). 

(3) Provide $500,000 for a Warm Springs Water Settlement Implementation Plan 

(BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management, Water Management, Planning, and Pre-Development). 

(4) Within BIA Law Enforcement, add $500,000 for Warm Springs (BIA Special 

Programs and Pooled Overhead, Public Safety and Justice). 

(5) In IHS Hospitals and Clinics, add $1.75 million for the Warm Springs Joint 

Venture Pilot Project (Indian Health Services Hospitals and Health Clinics). 

(6) Increase BIA and IHS contract support funding to 100 percent (BIA Tribal Priority Allocations, Tribal Government, Contract Support, Indian Health Services, 

Contract Support Costs). 

(7) On trust reform, Office of Special Trustee funding increases must not come out 

of existing tribal programs, and BIA’s reorganization should be deferred until the 

Trust Officers idea can be examined and clarified and the ‘‘As Is/To Be’’ study is 

completed. 

Mr. Chairman, my Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, has a 1,000 

square mile Reservation in north Central Oregon that is home to most of our 

4,200∂ members. Over the past several years, the two long-time mainstays of our 

Reservation economy, timber and hydroelectric revenues, have been steadily declining. Our available timber harvest has fallen by half, and softwood lumber prices are 

low. Electricity prices, after years of strong fluctuation, have also gone substantially 

down. Unfortunately, these conditions are projected to continue for at least several 
279

years into the future. We are aggressively pursuing other economic development initiatives, but as I am sure you know, economic development does not come easily to 

most of Indian Country. We are trying, but at present, not making much headway. 

In the past, when our tribal revenues were comparatively strong, we were able to 

significantly contribute to the federal government’s provision of services for Warm 

Springs. But that is not the case today, and we now find we must ask the federal 

government to more fully abide by its obligations to our Tribe. Accordingly, we hereby present our list of particulars to the U.S. Congress, and ask that you do all you 

can to honor them and uphold the unique and solemn obligations the United States 

has pledged to the Warm Springs Tribes. 

(1) Add $2 million to BIA TPA Forestry designated for Warm Springs (BIA Tribal 

Priority Allocations, Resources Management) 

The $2 million increase for Warm Springs is necessary for the BIA to fulfill, as 

a trustee, its legal duties and obligations to properly manage the Tribe’s forest resources. BIA funding for management of our 350,000 acre forest is $1,843,000, or 

$5.26 an acre. With cost of living adjustments, this is in keeping with the 1993 findings of the Congressionally authorized independent Indian Forest Management Assessment Team (IFMAT) that BIA funding per acre was $4.14 at that time, compared to $11.69 per acre for National Forests (roughly one-third the annual funding 

for National Forests on a per acre basis). This gross inequity continues to hamper 

the proper management of our forest, and has reaped consequences accordingly: the 

Tribe has recently prevailed in a forest mismanagement suit against BIA. Yet the 

BIA has failed to provide any increased resources to correct its deficiencies at Warm 

Springs. To begin to rectify these inadequacies, we request that a $2 million increase be specified for Warm Springs Forestry the BIA’s Tribal Priority Allocation 

budget, which we estimate will still only bring Warm Springs to approximately twothirds of parity with National Forests. We note, and support, the $1.5 million national increase recommended by the Administration for Tribal Priority Allocation Forestry in its fiscal year 2004 request. 

The Administration recommended a like increase for 2003 that was the first outright increase in Forestry funding since it was slashed by nearly 20 percent in fiscal 

year 1996. 

(2) Restore BIA ESA funding to $3.1 million, with $1.8 million for Northwest tribal ESA compliance activities, including $300,000 for Warm Springs (BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management) 

In fiscal year 1991, Northwest tribes, including Warm Springs, asked Congress to initiate northern spotted owl compliance funding. In fiscal year 1995, $1.7 million 

for NW tribes was combined with $1.3 million for a Northern Cheyenne prairie 

project. In fiscal year 2003, BIA proposed to defund almost all the program, but 

Congress restored $2,697,000 of the $3,000,000. For fiscal year 2004, BIA now proposes $2,198,000, all of which will reportedly go to set-up Regional ESA offices for 

BIA—none will go to tribes for on-the-ground activities. We request that, for fiscal 

year 2004, the funding and purpose of the program be restored with $3.1 million, 

of which $1.8 million is for Northwest tribes, including $300,000 designated for 

Warm Springs. 

(3) Provide $500,000 for a Warm Springs Water Settlement Implementation Plan 

(BIA Non-Recurring Programs, Resources Management, Water Management, 

Planning, and Pre-Development) 

In 1997, the Warm Springs Tribes reached a water settlement with the United 

States and the State of Oregon which left most of the water in the Metolius and 

Deschutes Rivers and does not now require the expensive water development legislation that normally accompanies tribal water settlements. However, $500,000 in 

BIA financial support is still needed to develop a Comprehensive Warm Springs 

Water Development Plan, to conduct water quality modeling for the Deschutes River 

Basin, and to examine potential energy development options. The Warm Springs 

federal water settlement took years to negotiate, and at the time of its completion 

was the first settlement achieved by Interior in four or five years. The settlement 

is now bringing greater water certainty to the Deschutes Basin, but the Tribe now 

needs Interior’s assistance in planning how we may best put our water rights to use. 

(4) Within BIA Law Enforcement, add $500,000 for Warm Springs (BIA Special Programs and Pooled Overhead, Public Safety and Justice) 

Law enforcement and public safety remain a very high priority at Warm Springs. 

In the past three years, Tribal leaders have worked to improve law enforcement capability on the Reservation by augmenting Tribally-funded police officers, corrections officers, investigators and fire medics with additional personnel and equipment 
280

supported in part by BIA law enforcement funds. For fiscal year 2004, we note that 

the President’s request for BIA Law Enforcement Services (LES) includes a funding 

increase of $10,110,000 to $168,774,000. Most of the BIA’s LES funding goes to support BIA staffed (direct operations) law enforcement activities on a limited number 

of reservations while other locations, including Warm Springs, have been left to 

largely fend for themselves. The Warm Springs Tribal Police Department is the only 

law enforcement agency responsible for our 1,000 square mile Reservation, as well 

as numerous off-Reservation trust parcels. With our own Tribal budget declining, 

and with the Department of Justice COPS program being discontinued at our Reservation, it is essential that BIA law enforcement share its steadily increased funding will all locations, including those such as Warm Springs where BIA has largely 

abandoned its public safety responsibilities. To restore a measure of balance and 

fairness to BIA law enforcement, we ask that $500,000 be added for Warm Springs. 

For fiscal year 2004, the Warm Springs Tribe will contribute $2,600,000 for public 

safety, and BIA will contribute an estimated $590,000. With the increase of 

$500,000, the fiscal year 2004 BIA total would still be less than one third of the 

public safety budget at Warm Springs. 

(5) In IHS Hospitals and Clinics, add $1.75 million for the Warm Springs Joint Venture Pilot Project (Indian Health Services Hospitals and Health Clinics). 

In 1991, the Congress, Indian Health Service (IHS), and the Warm Springs Tribe 

entered into an innovative ‘‘Joint Venture Pilot Project’’ to improve health care facilities and services at Warm Springs. The Tribe financed and constructed a new 

clinic to federal standards and the Congress and IHS agreed to fully fund and staff 

the enhanced health care program in the new facility. However, the federal funding 

actually provided has been far short of the promise. Moreover, for the last several 

years inadequately funded federal mandates have further diminished health services at Warm Springs. We request a $1.75 million increase in funding IHS Hospitals 

and Clinics to provide full direct services for the Warm Springs Joint Venture. 

(6) Increase BIA and IHS contract support funding to 100 percent (BIA Tribal Priority Allocations, Tribal Government, Contract Support, Indian Health Services, 

Contract Support Costs) 

Since 1975, Tribal Self-Determination pursuant to Public Law 93–638 has been 

the keystone of Federal Indian policy, in which tribes either contract or compact to 

take over the operation and management of programs otherwise run by the BIA and 

the IHS. In taking over these activities, tribes incur various unavoidable administrative costs over and above the federal program and program administration costs, 

including such things as audit and administrative costs for the contract itself (in 

contrast to the direct administrative costs for a particular program). Lest these unavoidable tribal contract support costs become a disincentive to the tribal assumption of BIA and IHS programs, Public Law 93–638 provides that tribes are to negotiate these costs with the respective Department’s Inspector General. The contract 

support costs are expressed as a percentage of a tribe’s amount under contract. Public Law 93–638 then authorizes payment of contract support costs to reimburse the 

tribe’s contract support expenses. 

Unfortunately, BIA and IHS budgets have failed to completely reimburse tribes 

for these unavoidable expenses. In fiscal year 2003, for instance, BIA only reimbursed about 92 percent of tribal contract support costs, leaving tribes to shoulder 

the remaining 8 percent. Please bear in mind these are costs the tribe would not 

incur if it were not contracting a program. For fiscal year 2004, we project the BIA 

and IHS contract support amounts, once again, will only be enough to reimburse 

92 percent or 93 percent of tribal contract support costs. Here at Warm Springs, 

where we have about $17 million under BIA and IHS Public Law 93–638 contracts, 

the unreimbursed amount we must shoulder is substantial, and with our tribal revenues declining, we are less able to contribute that amount toward the implementation of a federal policy. Accordingly, we request that BIA and IHS contract support 

be funded at 100 percent for fiscal year 2004, or about $145 million and $283 million respectively. 

(7) On trust reform, Office of Special Trustee funding increases must not come out 

of existing tribal programs, and BIA’s reorganization should be deferred until 

the Trust Officers idea can be examined and clarified and the ‘‘As Is/To Be’’ 

study is completed 

The BIA budget request includes a significant increase for trust management 

within the BIA and the Office of Special Trustee (OST). A $123 million increase for 

OST—to $275 million—is partially offset by a $63 million cut to the BIA Construction and an $8 million cut to Indian Water and Claims Settlements. Education Construction will lose $32 million—despite a terrible backlog of new school construction. 
281

Tribal leaders have repeatedly emphasized that funding needed to correct deficiencies in DOI trust management must not come from existing BIA programs or 

administrative monies. Instead, it is essential that DOI’s trust reform funding increases be provided by Congress rather than depleting already insufficient BIA programs. 

We are also concerned by Interior’s unilateral approach to trust reorganization 

and their request for significant increased funding for that reorganization with no 

clear provision for accountability. Increased funding for the OST is potentially an 

empty promise without clear accountability in place or plans to work with the impacted tribes and individuals. Organizational charts show the establishment of 

newly created Trust officers, likely placed at every BIA Agency and Regional Office, 

which may cause significant conflict with the authority held by the BIA Agency Superintendents. Before we create a mini-bureaucracy we would like a detailed examination of the financial and operative impact by both the Congress and impacted the 

Tribal governments. Moreover, before implementation, the authority and role of the 

proposed Trust Officers need to be much more clearly defined. 

Finally, trust reform should not be carried out until the corrective ‘‘To Be’’ portion 

of the ‘‘As Is/To Be’’ study of BIA is completed. A rush to trust reform before ‘‘To 

Be’’ completion will squander millions of dollars and significant tribal contributions, 

and only help perpetuate BIA’s past mistakes in trust management. 

This concludes my testimony. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CROWNPOINT INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (CIT) 

This testimony CIT requests $1.5 Million for fiscal year 2004 and continuation of 

Contract Support language under U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Activity: Special Programs and Pooled Overhead. It is CIT understanding that 

tribal postsecondary vocational institutions under this program are being internally 

transferred in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Office of Postsecondary Education. 

On behalf of the Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), I thank this Subcommittee for appropriating critically needed operational funds, the use of which is 

described below in quantitative detail. In addition, CIT expresses its deepest gratitude to the Subcommittee for its guidance to the Department on the issue of contract support. Funding for CIT is authorized under Public Law 84–959, ‘‘Vocational 

Training for Adult Indians.’’

CIT is the only postsecondary vocational educational institution on the Navajo 

Nation reservation. For academic year 2002–03, CIT’s enrollment is 517 Full Time 

Equivalency or Indian Student Count (FTE/ISC). 

The population of the Navajo Nation is 225,298 (U.S. Census 2000). The Navajo 

Nation is one of the very few tribes with an extant native language. Nearly all Navajo citizens raised on the reservation not only speak the Navajo language but also 

use it in their daily lives. On trust land alone, 106,432 Navajo citizens are age 18 

and over. The median Native American population age is 27.4 years, eight years 

younger than the median age for mainstream America. Approximately 10,000 Navajo students graduate from area high schools each year. The average CIT student 

age is 26, with the actual age range being 18 to 64. 

The Navajo reservation is an immense and remote 26,897 square miles extending 

into three States: Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. This reservation is 2,810 square 

miles larger than the State of West Virginia. The driving distance across the reservation is approximately nine hours. Although distant from major towns, 

Crownpoint is a major reservation activity center. CIT students come from throughout the reservation, as well as from the towns of Gallup, Cruet, Continental Divide, 

Fruitland, Kirtland, Mentmore, Rehoboth (all in New Mexico), Durango, Colorado, 

White Mesa, Utah and the Tohono O’odham and Hopi Reservations in Arizona. Approximately 30 percent of CIT students are from the Arizona side of the Reservation. 

It is important that appropriators understand the immense population difference 

that exists among Indian tribes. One typical comparison is the fifteen tribes in the 

States of Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota which have a combined population of 72,835 (U.S. Census 2000). The Navajo Nation population is more than 

three-fold this population. These fifteen tribes have sixteen tribal colleges, each on 

significantly smaller land bases. These distances are more commutable, and most 

do not require boarding facilities as CIT does. The Navajo Nation has only one other 

college, Dine’, based in Tsaile, Arizona with eight small branch campuses throughout the reservation. Of the entire Navajo population, only 4.66 percent of high 

school graduates go on to achieve a bachelor’s degree. Only 2 percent achieve Masters degrees, and less than one-half percent earn doctorates. CIT has proven to offer 
282

a realistic educational alternative that equips young adults with meaningful employment skills as well as placing graduates in career track employment. 

In order to achieve these goals, CIT has broader infrastructure responsibilities. 

CIT is campus-based with 153,468 square feet of facilities. The CIT campus includes 

state of the art classrooms and Veterinary Clinic, modular administrative buildings, 

library, dormitory, efficiency apartments, married student housing and cafeteria. 

CIT has no recreation facility. CIT students has a higher proportion with development educational needs, and longer distances travel to school daily. Despite many 

challenges, CIT earns achievements. In 2003, CIT received a Center for National 

Excellence award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the second time for 

sincere commitment to student outcomes, one of only eight such awards nationally. 

Also in 2003, the CIT Culinary Arts Program students won the Hilton Hotels-sponsored creative culinary art award. 

CIT continues to increase its student housing capacity with assistance from the 

Navajo Nation HUD. CIT does not use BIA funding for construction. In 2003, another sixteen married and family student units were completed under Navajo Nation HUD funding. Students with dependant families are among those most in need 

of acquiring employment skills. CIT opened a new 75 unit efficiency housing for 150 

students, but at the same time had to temporarily close its 110 unit dormitory for 

safety-related repairs to be completed in a year. Each year, CIT has averaged a 

waiting list of approximately 200 otherwise qualified students due to residential 

hosing limitations. Rental housing is scarce in the town of Crownpoint. Daily commuting from most parts of the reservation is hindered by poor roads, harsh weather 

and vast distance, although some students do commute daily up to 70 miles each 

way. CIT has an eight-year average student retention rate of 95 percent. Due to increased enrollments and funding shortages in Placement personnel, the average job 

placement has dropped from 86 percent to 75 percent. 

CIT is fully-accredited by North Central Association of Colleges and Schools as 

a vocational educational institution. CIT offers two-year Associate of Applied Science 

degrees in seven disciplines: Accounting, Administrative Assistant, Applied Computer Technology, Environmental Technology and Natural Resources, Law Advocate, 

Legal Assistant and Veterinary Technician. CIT offers sixteen vocational certificate 

programs: Accounting, Administrative Assistant, Applied Computer Technology, 

Automotive Technology, Building Maintenance, Carpentry, Culinary Arts, Electrical 

Trades, Environmental Technology and Natural Resources, Law Advocate, Legal Assistant, Nursing Assistant, Veterinary Assistant, Small Business Development 

(new), Commercial Drivers License and Computer Aided Drafting. In the upcoming 

year, CIT is ready to offer Alternative Energy to assist the many reservation areas 

that still do not have access to electricity and possibly never will. 

In May 2002, CIT graduated 208 students. This reflects an increase of 25 percent 

in the number of graduates over the previous year, which was 167 graduates. Approximately 80 percent of CIT completions not continuing their educations had secured employment placement by the time they graduated. Of this number, 86 percent secured full-time employment with the remaining 14 percent accepting seasonal 

jobs. 54 percent secured employment on-reservation and 46 percent off-reservation. 

In addition, the region’s economy is comprised significantly of self-employed ranchers who by definition are not placed in employment. Several CIT Veterinary students are self-employed ranchers who improve their livelihoods through knowledge 

and skills learned in the CIT Veterinary Program. Students continuing their educations are considered positive terminations. 

Of the above graduating classes (375 students), the CIT Placement Office successfully tracked and job placed 82 percent (308). 92 CIT graduates (30 percent) continued their educations. Funding limitations inhibit the capability of the CIT Placement Office to track and place 100 percent, but indicators over time are that some 

graduates who do not maintain contact with the Placement Office after graduation 

may do so because they have no need for job placement services. In other words, 

they find employment on their own. Of those graduates utilizing CIT placement 

services the following were placed in jobs or continued their education: Accounting 

10 of 10 (100 percent): Administrative Assistant 30 of 43 (70 percent): Applied Computer technology 24 of 44 (55 percent): Automotive Technology 19 of 20 (95 percent): 

Building Maintenance 15 of 18 (83 percent): Carpentry 17 of 20 (85 percent): Culinary Arts 9 of 12 (75 percent): Electrical Trades 20 of 22 (91 percent): Environmental Technology and Natural Resources 17 of 23 (74 percent): Legal Assistant 5 

of 5 (100 percent): Law Advocate 5 of 8 (63 percent): Nursing Assistant 34 of 52 

(65 percent): Veterinary Assistant 10 of 13 (77 percent): Commercial Drivers License 

16 of 18 (89 percent). Other variables affect employment success rates. For example, 

Nursing Assistants are in high demand. However, due to housing scarcity and 
283

transportation obstacles, several CIT Nursing Assistant graduates were unable to 

accept jobs offered. 

Of all CIT graduates, the average entry level wage is $17,160 per annum. CIT’s 

Commercial Drivers License (CDL) program graduates earn the highest wage at $16 

to $18 an hour, or $33,280 to $37,440 annually if employment remains stable. The 

next highest paid entry-level wages average by vocational program are: Veterinary 

Technician/Assistant $23,920: Legal Advocate/Assistant $21,320: Electrical Trades 

$20,280: Automotive and Environmental Technology, both at $19,760. Even the 

modest entry-level wages can be deceiving as to the wage once established in that 

profession. For example, an electrical apprentice will start at $9/$11 hourly. This 

wage will more than double to $22/$28 hourly in 31⁄2 to 4 years. 

For Associate degree students continuing their educations, CIT has articulation 

agreements with University of New Mexico Albuquerque and Gallup, New Mexico 

State, Ft. Lewis College, University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University. 

The University of Pennsylvania and Iowa State University interns participate in 

CIT’s Elk Management Program. In addition, CIT partners this program with the 

Tohono O’odham Tribe of Arizona where livestock is critical to subsistence. In the 

Tohono O’odham partnership, CIT addresses the very real problem of migratory 

livestock disease transmission from across the Mexico border. Partnering with Iowa 

State and Colorado State Universities, CIT offers an elk and cattle artificial insemination program for the region’s ranchers. In response to overgrazing, the Elk Management Program has proven to be a viable alternative livestock offering a threefold return over traditional livestock. 

In an average lifetime of employment, CIT graduates will return to the Federal 

Government the cost of its investment many times over. Each employed graduate 

pays an average of $2,576 of their earnings to federal taxes in the first year of employment alone. Actual taxes paid differ according to a number of variables, but 

wage earnings and resultant tax contributions will generally continue over at least 

thirty years. 62 percent of tracked graduates are employed in private industry and 

do not rely directly or indirectly on federal appropriations for jobs. 

As is prevalent throughout the economically disadvantaged in Native America, 

many high school graduates are not equipped with skills necessary to enter postsecondary education. To rectify this deficiency among some CIT applicants, CIT will 

hold its first summer session of Developmental Studies in 2003 for 150 entering students. 

CIT continually strives to strengthen its programs. In 2003 CIT will enhance articulation agreements with San Juan and Dine Colleges through standardization of 

course offerings, particularly in the math and sciences. Through such measures CIT 

can more effectively ascertain student achievement and modify course offerings as 

necessary. CIT will require additional resources to retain adjunct faculty in order 

to achieve this goal. 

On behalf of all the CIT students whose quality of life has been immensely improved by Interior appropriations, I thank this Subcommittee for all of its assistance. CIT still faces the challenges described above, and will deeply appreciate and 

maximally benefit from the modest increase requested from this Subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE EASTERN SHOSHONE AND NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBES

The Wind River Reservation in central Wyoming is home to the Eastern Shoshone 

Tribe and the Northern Band of the Arapaho, as well as approximately 25,000 nonIndians. The majority of these residents are cattle ranchers, working small ranches 

to support a modest lifestyle. The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho respectfully request $3.35 million for the fiscal year 2004, fiscal year 2005, and fiscal year 

2006 appropriations cycles to begin the repair and rehabilitation of the Wind River 

Irrigation Project, which provides vital water to these ranchers. 

NEED FOR AN APPROPRIATION

Irrigation on the Wind River Indian Reservation dates back to the early 1860’s, 

prior to the Reservation’s establishment in 1868. In 1905, Congress enacted legislation providing, in part, for the construction of an irrigation system to serve Indian 

lands on the Wind River Reservation. This system, the Wind River Irrigation 

Project, was never completed, and unfortunately, is in exceptionally poor condition. 

During the 1960’s, a report completed on the status of the project indicated that 

74 percent of the 3,820 structures along the 420 miles of the canal were in dire need 

of repair. Regardless, restorative efforts were not taken and instead, these structures have continued to deteriorate. 
284

Currently the project encompasses 77,000 acres, of which only 40,000 acres are 

irrigable. Three major structures are in imminent danger of failure, with only 

enough emergency funds on hand to repair one such failure. Canals and diversion 

structures are of inadequate size, canals and laterals have eroded, and extensive 

seepage is evident along delivery canals and laterals. (Full reports of the deficiencies 

are available for congressional review.) 

Various evaluations by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Tribes, and other 

entities, have shown that the system is in critical condition and in need of immediate attention to maintain the current economic conditions of the Wind River Reservation. The Project Engineer estimates that major head gate structures will begin 

failing soon, rendering much of the project unserviceable. One engineering firm suggests that, without action, the Wind River Irrigation Project has a maximum life 

of seven (7) years. Because 25 percent of the irrigable acreage is idle and lacks an 

adequate water delivery system, these Indian and non-Indian landowners are denied the ability to make their lands productive. 

Further exacerbating the situation, Wyoming is in the midst of its worst drought 

in more than a century. Failure of the Irrigation Project will devastate these Indian 

and non-Indian ranchers, and a local economy where agriculture income is key. 

ISSUE OF EQUITY

The Wind River Reservation is also home to similar projects, such as the Midvale 

Irrigation Project. Aimed at providing water to non-Indians residing on the reservation, the Midvale Project has received federal assistance of approximately $1,000/

acre for water delivery enhancements and improvements. By comparison, the Wind 

River Irrigation project has received approximately $100/acre. 

It is inequitable for the United States to have funded the non-Indian federal 

project on the reservation at a level of 90 percent more than the Indian project. The 

Tribes are simply asking to be provided equitable treatment with other irrigators. 

The inequities of the past have contributed to 53 percent of our population living 

below the poverty level, a 49 percent unemployment rate, and the inability to put 

our land to productive use. 

USE OF APPROPRIATIONS

The requested appropriations will be used to begin the rehabilitation process. Specifically, steps will be taken to replace or repair, and correctly size, approximately 

11 major headgates; install 2 sand traps; reconfigure, repair, and install pipe on 9.5 

miles of lateral; install or repair 14 check and headgate structures; and repair and 

clean 5 laterals. This work is the initial part of the overall rehabilitation of the 

project. 

In summary the irrigation project is in dire need of federal funding to stabilize 

and reverse the continuing deterioration of the system. The Eastern Shoshone and 

the Northern Arapaho Tribes are seeking Congressional appropriations to begin the 

repair and rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation Project. We respectfully request that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and related agencies 

support the Tribe’s request of $3.35 million for each of the fiscal years 2004, 2005, 

and 2006. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony to the Committee on this urgent matter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

I, Robert B. Peacock, Chairman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa would like to thank you for this opportunity to present written testimony on 

fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Department of Interior. The Fond du Lac 

Reservation was established by Treaty with the United States on September 30, 

1854 and encompasses 100,000 acres of land in northeastern Minnesota. There is 

a population of 6,500 Indian people that live within the service area of the Reservation with the Band providing employment or services to most of them. On behalf 

of the Fond du Lac Band, I am asking that you increase the bands funding from 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs by $9 million for fiscal year 2004 to develop the infrastructure necessary to continue to serve and protect the resources of the band. I also 

request that $915,000 be provided for the Circle of Flight program under the BIA’s 

Other Recurring Programs—Resource Management line item. The Dept. of Interior’s 

Tribal Wildlife Grant Program was funded at $5 million, and I request that this 

Grant Program be funded at this level for fiscal year 2004. 
285

We strongly support the Administration’s request of additional funding under the 

Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. In 1997 the Minnesota Supreme Court 

held that certain traffic regulations including, speeding, driving without a license, 

and driving with no insurance were ‘‘civil-regulatory’’ in nature and under Public 

Law 280 are unenforceable by state police officers on the Reservation. The ruling 

known as the Stone decision, left a jurisdictional void with regard to law enforcement on the roads within Indian Reservations in the State. In order to fill this void, 

the Band has undertaken the establishment of it’s own Tribal police force through 

the Community Oriented Policing Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal 

funds. In addition, the Band has worked with all local law enforcement agencies to 

establish a cross deputization agreement that ensures maximum law enforcement 

protection for the Reservation and it’s citizens by allowing all law enforcement agencies within the Reservation boundaries to enforce each other’s laws. However, because of the short-term, limited financial resources available, there are significant 

unmet needs in this area. At Fond du Lac, we need long term funding to pay for 

staff and equipment to adequately ensure the safety of the Reservation population. 

In light of the Stone decision, we ask this committee to support the Administration’s 

request for investment in strengthening Indian Country’s Law Enforcement and 

Criminal Justice System and ask that this committee consider placing these initiatives into the BIA’s permanent base budget. The Band currently employs seven police officers, six conservation officers, one records clerk, one prosecuting attorney, 

one clerk of court, one part time court recorder, and one part time judge. All of these 

staff positions are located within the Resource Management division. Along with 

this staff, are thirty other permanent full time staff and fifteen full time seasonal 

staff housed in a building that was designed to house twenty. With the increased 

responsibility assumed by the Band there is an ever increasing need to expand the 

staff and it’s capabilities. With this in mind, we request a one time allocation of $6 

million to the Band for expansion of the office space for the Resource Management 

Division. We are also requesting that $1.5 million be added to our base budget to 

continue to implement and staff the court and enforcement systems for the Band. 

Under Treaties with the United States made in 1837 and 1854 the Fond du Lac 

Band reserved the right to hunt, fish and gather on the lands ceded, a large portion 

of central and northeastern Minnesota, to the United States. The Band’s rights 

under these treaties have been recognized and upheld by the federal courts—most 

recently the United States Supreme Court. On March 24, 1999 the Supreme Court 

issued a decision expressly re-affirming the Band’s hunting and fishing rights in the 

1837 Ceded Territory. Under established Band conservation law, the exercise of 

these off-reservation treaty rights require that the Band take the steps necessary 

to ensure proper use and management of the natural resources. This means the 

Band is responsible for member’s hunting, fishing and gathering activities over approximately 8,000,000 acres of land. The Band has adopted, along with the federal 

courts, a code and a resource management plan that protects the exercise of treaty 

reserved rights and the resources. It is very essential that the Band continues to 

manage it’s on-reservation resources in order to meet the demands of an increasing 

population. Established by the Treaty of 1854 with the United States, the home of 

the Band is 100,000 acres in northeastern Minnesota. The waters, wildlife, wild rice 

and the forest resources of the reservation are vitally important to it’s members as 

these resources provide the foundation for our culture, subsistence, employment and 

recreation. The Fond du Lac Reservation includes some 3,200 acres of lakes, 1,900 

acres of wild rice lakes and associated wetlands, 66 miles of cool water streams, and 

17,500 acres of forest with the remaining acres being used by individual land owner 

for housing and development. The increasing resident population and development 

are placing all resources under great stress. The loss of wild rice acres, wildlife habitat, and the decline of our forest are of great concern to the Band. Therefore, we 

are seeking an additional $1.5 million be added to the Band’s base budget for the 

Fond du Lac Resource Management Division, for it’s natural resource programs, 

that will enable us to protect these resources for the future generations on Fond du 

Lac. 

In the $1.5 million request, we seek an additional $100,000 increase to the base 

budget of the Fond du Lac Natural Resources Program. The Fond du Lac Natural 

Resources program carries out the essential fisheries, wildlife and wild rice programs on the Fond du Lac Reservation. This Program is restoring over 1,000 acres 

of wild rice on our Reservation’s wild rice lakes, and is also conducting a long term 

project to restore the lake sturgeon to the upper St. Louis River. The funds for this 

program have not been increased since 1991 and the cost of conducting these resource management programs has increased substantially. 

Another important resource management need is to obtain funds to address the 

threat of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), which has recently infected white tailed 
286

deer in our region. CWD poses a very serious threat to the health of the white tailed 

deer herds and potentially to the moose population in northern Minnesota. Where 

it has been found, the only known treatment is eradication of captive herds and 

great reduction in the wild deer herds. The impacts of CWD on human health are 

currently unknown, but warrant further investigation. The potential harm to the 

deer population in this region has serious implications for Native Americans, because for a majority of Fond du Lac Band Members, deer comprise 25–30 percent 

of their diet. Therefore, we urgently request $75,000 in base program funds for our 

Conservation Enforcement Program. The long term funding of this project is necessary for our Conservation Enforcement and Wildlife staff to collect the samples 

from hunters for analysis, in order to identify the frequency and range of infected 

deer in Northeastern Minnesota. This is the area in which our Band Members frequently hunt for deer and moose. If infected animals are found, a program of deer 

harvesting to thin the local herd is essential in order to prevent or limit the expansion of this disease. 

We ask that the House Appropriations Committee support the Fond du Lac Band 

in behalf of the Fond du Lac Ojibwe Schools to support all Bureau of Indian Affairs 

requests for education programs. 

The Circle of Flight.—Tribal Wetland & Waterfowl Enhancement Initiative program, under the BIA’s Other Recurring Programs category, was again eliminated 

in President Bush’s fiscal year 2004 budget request. The Circle of Flight program 

has been one of Interior’s top trust resource protection programs for 10 years. Since 

fiscal year 1991, Great Lakes tribes and other partners have restored or enhanced 

more than 66,000 wetland, wild rice, grassland and native prairie acres, and installed thousands of waterfowl nest structures. Wild rice lakes provide high quality 

forage for migratory waterfowl as well as waterfowl nesting habitat. The Circle of 

Flight program enabled the Great Lakes tribes to become key partners with federal, 

state, and local government units, as well as private organizations such as Ducks 

Unlimited, the Nature Conservancy. The Circle of Flight program has invested more 

than $6 million in habitat projects, and has leveraged these dollars for an additional 

$18 million in federal, state, private, and tribal funding, yielding and impressive 

match ratio of 3 to 1. The elimination of the Circle of Flight program would cripple 

the Great Lakes tribe’s ability to continue these successful partnerships, which have 

benefited a diverse array of wildlife species and their associated habitats. I ask that 

you restore the Circle of Flight program to the BIA’s fiscal year 2004 budget to at 

least the fiscal year 2003 level of $594,000, and to consider providing the fiscal year 

2004 requested amount of $915,000. 

I thank the Committee for the new $5 million Tribal Wildlife Grants program in 

the Interior Conservation Spending category in fiscal year 2002 and 2003. Even 

though this amount represents only .28 percent of this Title, whereas tribes are directly responsible for protecting at least 2.35 percent of the land area of the United 

States, it represents a good start at helping to address the massive unmet need 

tribes have in meeting their conservation responsibilities. I ask that you consider 

increasing the Tribal Wildlife Grant program to $10 million in fiscal year 2004. 

In conclusion, the needs at Fond du Lac and throughout Indian Country remain 

massive. Your support to preserve the current BIA funding request is critical to 

maintain current program levels. Your consideration for our additional funding requests will enable us to improve the delivery of services to Band members and help 

ensure that we enter the 21st Century with a renewed sense of hope. 

Miigwech. Thank you. 

LETTER FROM THE FREMONT COUNTY, WY LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND MEMBERS

OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON TRIBAL RELATIONS

APRIL 11, 2003.

Re Support for Funding to Rehabilitate the Wind River Irrigation Project.

Hon. CONRAD BURNS, 

Chairman, Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATOR BURNS: We, the Fremont County, Wyoming legislative delegation 

and members of the Select Committee on Tribal Relations, are writing this letter 

to express our support for the Eastern Shoshone Tribe and the Northern Arapaho 

Tribe’s fiscal year 2004 appropriations request to begin rehabilitation of the Wind 

River Irrigation Project. The Tribes are in significant need of water development 

funding. 
287

The Bureau of Indian Affairs-administered Wind River Irrigation Project is in a 

condition of severe disrepair, with over $50 million in deferred maintenance. The 

recent drought has highlighted the inefficiency of water delivery on the Wind River 

Irrigation Project. In addition, many of the essential delivery structures arc in danger of failing. If rehabilitation does not occur soon, the system will become inoperable. 

During Wyoming’s last legislative session we worked closely with the Eastern 

Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes to develop and pass legislation which will 

enable the Tribes to act as sponsors of water development projects through the Wyoming Water Development Program. Due to the poor condition of water delivery infrastructure on the WRIR, a combination of federal and state funds will likely be 

needed to meet all the water development needs of the Tribes. A federal appropriation for irrigation rehabilitation on the WRIR for fiscal year 2004 will encourage favorable consideration by the Wyoming legislature for the Tribal request for Wyoming Water Development funding during the next legislative session. 

If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at our respective addresses 

and phone numbers. We respectfully ask that you support this much needed appropriation. 

Sincerely,

Senator CALE CASE, 

Lander, WY. 

Senator BOB PECK, 

Riverton, WY. 

Representative HARRY TIPTON, 

Lander, WY. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE

COMMISSION

BIA Treaty Rights Protection/Implementation: $3,966,000 (enacted fiscal year 

2003).—Operation of Indian Programs, Other Recurring Programs, Resources Management, Rights Protection/Implementation, Great Lakes Area Resource Management. 

GLIFWC seeks to maintain the base budget that Congress has provided for the 

past two years. The ‘‘Green Book’’ is not yet available for fiscal year 2004, but 

GLIFWC presumes that, as with previous budget proposals, the Administration will 

propose funding at $300,000 below the enacted fiscal year 2003 amount. Since 

GLIFWC’s inception in 1984, Congress consistently has recognized the need to 

maintain GLIFWC’s core natural resource conservation and law enforcement programs. For example, Congress provided funds in fiscal year 2002 to restore GLIFWC 

program cuts caused by chronic underfunding. And, in fiscal year 2003, Congress 

restored the Administration’s proposed cut of nearly $300,000 from GLIFWC’s enacted fiscal year 2002 funding. 

The requested fiscal year 2004 funds would allow GLIFWC to maintain its programs that fulfill important federal obligations to its 11 member Ojibwe Tribes and 

that provide a wide range of associated public benefits. With full base funding, 

GLIFWC’s will be able to meet its duties under a number of federal court decisions. 

And, it can remain a viable conservation and public safety partner in Wisconsin, 

Michigan and Minnesota at a time when many surrounding agencies have been hit 

hard by the call to active military duty. 

BIA Contract Support Costs.—GLIFWC also seeks full funding of its contract support costs, as it has experienced a $250,000 shortfall since 1995. This shortfall cuts 

into program funding, and the lack of funding certainty throughout the year further 

compounds its effect. GLIFWC’s indirect cost rate has always been below 15.25 percent, and was 14.2 percent in fiscal year 2002. Such a low rate is difficult to maintain when actual funding is not known until the end of the fiscal year. 

BIA ‘‘Circle of Flight’’ Program.—GLIFWC supports funding to Operation of Indian Programs, Other Recurring Programs, Resources Management, Tribal Management Development Programs, Wetlands/Waterfowl Management. In fiscal year 2003, 

the Administration proposed to eliminate this long-standing tribal contribution to 

the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Congress disagreed, and restored 

the necessary funding. Over the past 11 years, the roughly $7 million provided to 

Tribes, including to GLIFWC and its member Tribes, has leveraged over $18 million—a 2.5 to 1 ratio—in matching federal, state, private, and other tribal funding 

for cooperative wetland enhancement projects. 
288

1 $100,000 to restore fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys to previous levels; $30,000 to restore tribal court and registration station funding cuts; $10,500 to restore Lake Superior lamprey control and whitefish assessment programs; $15,000 to meet harvest monitoring obligations; and $4,500 to restore GLIFWC’s share in cooperative wildlife and wild rice enhancement 

projects with state and federal agencies, as well as with non-profit conservation organizations 

and other partners. 2With fiscal year 2003 funds, GLIFWC replenished a $100,000 vehicle/equipment replacement 

capital fund and replaced a number of its oldest vehicles and equipment that had become obsolete or economically inefficient to operate and maintain. This fund would be replenished again 

with fiscal year 2004 funds to cover some of the over $200,000 in other vehicle/equipment replacement needs. 

Ceded Territory Treaty Rights and GLIFWC’S Role.—GLIFWC was established in 

1984 as a ‘‘tribal organization’’ within the meaning of the Indian Self-Determination 

Act (Public Law 93–638) to assist its member Tribes in: 

—securing and implementing treaty guaranteed rights to hunt, fish, and gather 

in Chippewa treaty ceded territories; and 

—cooperatively managing and protecting ceded territory natural resources and 

their habitats. 

It exercises authority delegated by its member Tribes to implement federal court 

orders and various interjurisdictional agreements related to their treaty rights. It 

serves as a cost efficient agency to conserve natural resources, to effectively regulate 

harvests of natural resources shared among treaty signatory Tribes, and to develop 

cooperative partnerships with other government agencies, educational institutions, 

and non-governmental organizations. 

Congress has funded GLIFWC for the past 17 years to meet specific federal obligations under: (a) a number of U.S./Chippewa treaties; (b) the federal trust responsibility; (c) the Indian Self-Determination Act; and (d) various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case, affirming the treaty rights of GLIFWC’s member Tribes. 

Under the direction of its member Tribes, GLIFWC operates a ceded territory 

hunting, fishing, and gathering rights protection/implementation program through 

its staff of biologists, technicians, conservation enforcement officers, and public information specialists. Its activities include: natural resource population assessments 

and studies; harvest monitoring and reporting; enforcement of tribal conservation 

codes into tribal courts; funding for tribal courts and tribal registration/permit stations; development of natural resource management plans and tribal regulations; 

negotiation and implementation of agreements with state, federal and local agencies; invasive species eradication and control projects; biological and scientific research; and development and dissemination of public information materials. 

Why GLIFWC’S Funding Base Needs to be Maintained.—A $300,000 cut in 

GLIFWC’s base funding will threaten a number of its core programs. This is best 

illustrated by how the restored funding in fiscal year 2003 was used: to reinstitute 

fall juvenile walleye recruitment surveys at previous levels; to restore tribal court 

and registration station funding cuts; to restore Lake Superior lamprey control and 

whitefish assessment programs; to restore GLIFWC’s share in cooperative wildlife 

and wild rice enhancement projects; to replace ageing equipment; to meet expanding 

harvest monitoring needs; and to meet uncontrollable increases in employee benefit 

costs (particularly health and other insurance). 

In addition, a continued base funding level will ensure GLIFWC’s participation in 

regional emergency services networks at a time when many personnel of surrounding agencies have been called to active military duty. GLIFWC’s officers are 

integral partners with surrounding emergency responders. They not only enforce the 

Tribes’ conservation codes, but also work cooperatively with surrounding authorities 

in detecting violations of state or federal criminal and conservation laws. Moreover, 

they are certified medical emergency first responders, including in CPR and in the 

use of defibrillators, and are trained in search and rescue. 

GLIFWC has worked hard to streamline its programs and institute other cost-saving options. Specifically, it has: (i) cut staff; (ii) teamed up with its partners to maximize the cost efficiency of cooperative projects; (iii) obtained separate contract support funding from the BIA; and (iv) diversified its funding from non-BIA sources to 

build upon its Self-Determination Act funding and to undertake special projects. 

How the Restored Base Funding Would be Used.—The $300,000 would be used the 

same in fiscal year 2004 as it was in fiscal year 2003—(1) Restore Cut or Reduced 

Programs ($160,000) 1; (2) Replace Ageing Vehicles and Field Equipment 

($100,000) 2; and (3) Meet Increased Personnel and Fringe Costs ($40,000). 

Public Benefits From GLIFWC’s Funding.—With the requested funds, GLIFWC 

will: 
289

1. Remain a constructive, stabilizing natural resource management and public 

safety institution.—GLIFWC provides continuity and stability in interagency relationships and among its member Tribes, and contributes to social stability in the 

ceded territory in the context of treaty rights issues. It is a recognized and valued 

partner in natural resource management, in emergency services networks, and in 

providing accurate information to the public. 

2. Retain an Experienced Professional Staff.—In many instances, GLIFWC staff 

experience matches or exceeds that of their counterparts in other agencies when it 

comes to treaty rights issues and to ceded territory natural resource management 

and enforcement. 

3. Maintain cooperative, cost-effective partnerships.—GLIFWC has built partnerships with: 

—Federal, state, and local government agencies (e.g. State DNR’s, USFWS, 

USDA-FS, USDA-NRCS, Great Lakes Fishery Commission, US Coast Guard, 

EPA, ATSDR, HHS-ANA, and Canadian federal and provincial governments); 

—Schools and Universities (e.g. University of Wisconsin-Madison, University of 

Wisconsin-Superior, Northland College, University of Minnesota, and Lac 

Courte Oreilles Ojibwe Community College); and 

—Conservation groups (e.g. Ducks Unlimited, the Sharp-Tail Grouse Society, the 

Natural Resources Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, and local lake associations). 

Through these partnerships, the parties have achieved public benefits that no one 

partner could have achieved alone by: 

—Identifying mutual natural resource concerns, and implementing joint conservation and enhancement projects (e.g. wild rice restoration, waterfowl habitat restoration and improvement projects, and exotic species control projects); 

—Providing accurate information on state and tribal harvests and on the status 

of natural resource populations (e.g. joint fishery assessment activities and 

jointly prepared reports); 

—Maximizing financial resources to avoid duplication of effort and costs (e.g. coordinating annual fishery assessment schedules and sharing personnel/equipment); 

—Contributing scientific research and data regarding natural resources and public health (e.g. furbearer/predator research, fish consumption/human health 

studies, and other fish contaminant research particularly regarding mercury); 

and 

—Engendering cooperation rather than competition (e.g. cooperative law enforcement and emergency response, joint training sessions, mutual aid emergency 

services arrangements, and cross-credential agreements). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HOOPA TRIBE OF CALIFORNIA

The Hoopa Tribe respectfully submits this written testimony regarding the fiscal 

year 2004 budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. A summary of my requests are 

as follows: 

—Request support for the California Trust Reform Pilot Project 

—$319,000 for Forest Development Add-On. 

—$546,000 for Timber Sale Preparation and Administration. 

—$228,000 for Forest Program Management. 

—$194,000 for Forest Inventories and Plans. 

—$435,000 for Road Maintenance and Improvements. 

NARRATIVE OF REQUEST

California Trust Reform Pilot Project.—In 1997, the Hoopa, Karuk, Redding 

Rancheria, Yurok, Big Lagoon, Cabazon Tribes formed the California Trust Reform 

Consortium. The Guidiville Indian Rancheria joined in 2002. The purpose of the 

Consortium is to work with the Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Regional Office 

(PRO) to improve management of trust activities being performed by the Federal 

Government and member Tribes. A part of the Consortium’s efforts has been to 

work with the PRO to identify problem areas related to management and protection 

of trust assets, identify and resolve funding and staffing shortages and address policy and regulatory conflicts that arise during tribal and BIA management of trust 

resources. The ongoing working relationship between the member tribes and the 

PRO has provided a meaningful way for the tribes and the PRO to identify trust 

issues as they arise and effectively resolve them before a legal or breach of trust 

issue can develop between the parties. 
290

The California Trust Reform Pilot Project has been tremendously successful for 

both the BIA and Tribes. Further, the ongoing working relationship has created new 

opportunities to begin working on trust issues that were never before been addressed and has facilitated a positive environment to emerge to support economic 

development and enhance tribal management and infrastructure. Therefore, the 

California Trust Reform Consortium requests that the Subcommittee provide language in the Appropriations Report that continues the support for this important 

and successful effort. 

Forest Development—$319,000.—The current Forest Development budget for 

Hoopa is used for the salary of one person whose sole responsibility is to lay out 

pre-commercial thinning projects for the Hoopa Reservation. In addition, Tribal 

funds are used to pay for one-half of the salary of the certified silviculturist who 

oversees projects as they are carried out by local Indian contractors. To date, the 

Tribe has implemented over 5,000 acres of thin and release projects on the Reservation, which has generated more than 100 man years of work during the past ten 

years. Pre-commercial thin and release projects are designed to remove competition 

from non-commercial vegetation of forest lands and to remove brush that has historically contributed to wildland fires. This funding increase will allow the Tribe to 

carry out this important trust responsibility activity at a level to keep up with noncommercial vegetation growth by increasing the ‘‘on- the -ground’’ work that is needed for proper for management of Indian trust assets. These funds would allow the 

Tribe to thin and release an additional 1,000 acres of newer second growth timber 

stands that have not thinned since 1970 due to the lack of funding. In addition, this 

funding would allow the Tribe to hire another one full time employee that is critically needed to carry out these efforts. 

Timber Sale Layout and Administration—$546,000.—This program is responsible 

for overseeing the preparation, layout, documentation in FOR’s and contracts, and 

for administering of timber sale contracts used to harvest approximately $8 million 

of annual tribal timber sales. The program provides timber sale layout, administration, scaling, and small sales for Indian allotments. The Tribe currently funds nearly all of the layout and small sales work with tribal funds, including timber sales 

for individual Indian allottees. These funds would allow the Tribe to hire a timber 

management officer, two sale administrators and two scaling technician, which compose the minimal trust oversight obligations for these responsibilities. In addition, 

the funding requested would allow the Tribe to establish the necessary staffing and 

resources needed to carry out timber sales activities in accordance with federal timber statutes and regulations. 

Forest Program Management—$228,000.—This program pays for the central administrative staff that is necessary to oversee all Tribal and individual Indian timber sales, management of timber trust assets and provide technical assistance 

where needed relating to forest and timber land activities to the Tribe and Indian 

allottees. The funding request would not only support the administrative functions 

of the Hoopa Forestry Department but would also provide funds for a personnel 

clerk for the 70 Forestry Department staff and for a grants and contracts personnel, 

neither of which are not presently funded by the BIA. These funds would also allow 

the Forestry Administration to properly manage contracts for Forest development 

projects and conduct proper oversight functions for timber sale site pre-preparation, 

prescribed burning activities, reforestation and grubbing, as well as other activities, 

such as NEPA, botany surveys and Endangered Species oversight. 

Forest Management Planning and Inventories—$194,000.—Forest Management 

Planning and Inventories is responsible for all initial project planning including the 

development and approval of Environmental Assessments (EA) for all projects. Approximately three to five EA’s are produced annually, including timber sale project 

EA’s and road development. Presently, this important component of the Tribal Forestry Department is not funded by the BIA. 

Roads Maintenance and Improvements—$435,000.—There are 450 miles of system 

roads on the Hoopa Reservation, of which only 130 miles are on the BIA road maintenance schedule. There are an additional 100 miles of roads that are in very poor 

condition that continuously contribute to fishery stream sedimentation due to winter 

landslides and blown out culverts, as well as create wildland fire hazards due to 

brush overgrowth and allow trespass and illegal wood cutting by outsiders. The 

present funding level of the BIA Road maintenance Program for only the 130 miles 

of roads that are on the BIA maintenance schedule for the Reservation is $132,000, 

which is 11.59 percent of need. In 1992, the Tribe hired an engineering firm to assess the road conditions and establish an adequate maintenance budget and schedule. The firm’s analysis determined that an annual additional operating budget of 

$435,000 would be required to properly manage Reservation roads. 
291

CONCLUSION

The California Trust Reform Pilot Project has been a proven success in improving 

the management of trust assets and improving the working relationship between 

the member tribes and the BIA. We request the Subcommittee’s support for continuing this Pilot Project. With respect to Forest Management and Road Maintenance, the BIA’s budget is significantly short of demonstrated need. The Tribe will 

have an extremely difficult time continuing to carry out these federal trust responsibility activities without the funding requested. 

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (530) 625–

4211 ext. 102 or via email at lylelmarshall@hotmail.com. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS (BIA)

The management of multi-jurisdictional fish, wildlife and outdoor recreation resources on Indian reservations and in treaty-ceded areas is a complex process requiring the implementation of comprehensive programs comparable to those conducted by State and Federal fish and wildlife agencies. The shared status of many 

fish and wildlife resources and the roles and responsibilities of many Tribal governments as resource co-managers require close coordination with State, Federal and 

other resource management authorities. Effective Tribal participation promotes and 

facilitates fish and wildlife conservation for the benefit of Tribal and non-Tribal 

communities alike. For these reasons, the Association continues to be concerned by 

the woefully inadequate Wildlife and Parks budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The base request for fiscal year 2004 of $24.2 million is virtually identical to the 

fiscal year 2003 request and is more than a $7 million (23 percent) reduction from 

the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget for this program. This is an inappropriate and 

inadequate response to the needs on Tribal lands. The Association encourages Congress to restore these cuts and subsequently appropriate additional funds to begin 

to address long-standing resource needs on Tribal lands. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request includes $434,000 for fish hatchery maintenance, an amount that mirrors the current year’s budget, which barely recognizes 

the more than $25 million backlog in required hatchery maintenance. This amounts 

to approximately $3,600 per year for each of the 120 currently operating Tribal 

hatcheries and rearing facilities across the country, and falls far short of addressing 

even minor maintenance requirements. The Association strongly recommends a significantly increased funding level for fiscal year 2004 and out years with the objective of eliminating the fish hatchery maintenance backlog by fiscal year 2010. 

The Association has, in the past, strongly supported the agency’s request for fish 

hatchery rehabilitation to rehabilitate Tribal fish hatcheries and replace capitalized 

equipment for the highest priority projects. Not since fiscal year 1995 has Congress 

appropriated money for such rehabilitation. The Association strongly recommends 

that Congress reestablish the fiscal year 1995 funding base of $1.5 million to replace 

failing systems and modernize Tribal fish hatcheries to enable them to optimize fish 

production. This funding would help satisfy vital Tribal fishery needs. 

The Association believes that Tribal lands are integral to the maintenance and 

recovery of threatened and endangered species. Presently, the majority of Tribes are 

unable to be parties to candidate species studies and conservation agreements due 

principally to lack of funding. The Association strongly recommends an increase of 

$900,000 to the fish hatchery operations line-item for the Tribes to participate in 

all phases of the endangered species recovery process. This would enable Tribes to 

begin to address listed species needs and recovery of species from which all Americans benefit. 

The Association is concerned about the funding being requested for endangered 

species activities within the non-recurring portion of the budget request. The $2.19 

million being requested for this function is a considerable improvement over the 

President’s 2003 budget request of $197,000, but still falls short of addressing nearly $70 million in identified needs for this program area. While important work related to monitoring spotted owls and marbled murrelets in the Pacific Northwest 

and the range management improvements related to black-tailed prairie dogs and 

black-footed ferrets in South Dakota will be allowed to continue, funding is below 

the level needed. The Association, therefore, recommends an increase of $.8 million 

to the fiscal year 2004 Tribal endangered species budget category to fully fund the 

aforementioned projects and significantly increased funding in the out years with 
292

the objective of addressing the backlog of needed endangered species conservation 

efforts by fiscal year 2010. 

The fiscal year 2002 budget ceased listing the funds for Alaska Subsistence as a 

separate line-item and placed the funding for this purpose in the Tribal Management/Development Program, and that practice continues in the fiscal year 2004 

budget. Given that provisions for subsistence in Alaska are not specific to Tribes, 

the Association recommends that this program be identified as a separate line-item 

in the same fashion as other Interior agencies. 

The Association opposes the elimination of $2.85 million from the base budget of 

Wildlife and Parks. The six programs being eliminated in Tribal Management/Development programs are: 

1. The Chugach Regional Resources Commission. The Commission, which encourages and oversees Native resource development programs for five Native Villages 

along the northern rim of the Gulf of Alaska, has been funded since fiscal year 1991. 

The Association supports the reinstatement of the full $347,000 to fund this important project in the coming fiscal year. 

2. The Alaska Sea Otter Commission. This Tribal consortium promotes Native 

participation in resource policy decisions pertaining to the sea otter and has been 

funded since fiscal year 1993. The Association supports the reinstatement of the full 

$69,000 to fund this important project in the coming fiscal year. 

3. The Bering Sea Fisherman’s Association. This association has been funded 

since fiscal year 1994 and supports the involvement of Alaska Native tribes and organizations in salmon research and monitoring projects in the Arctic-YukonKuskokwim region of Alaska. The Association supports the reinstatement of the full 

$803,000 to fund this important project in the coming fiscal year. 

4. The Lake Roosevelt Management Project in Washington State. Funding has 

been provided in the past through negotiated contracts with the Confederated 

Colville Tribes and the Spokane Tribe. Funds are used to implement a cooperative 

management agreement between the Tribes and the Department of the Interior for 

managing outdoor recreation in and around Lake Roosevelt. Funds support Tribal 

programs focusing on the management, planning and regulation of fishing, boating, 

camping and related public use activities occurring within the Reservation Zone of 

the Lake Roosevelt Recreation Area. Funding from this account also supports the 

Lake Roosevelt Water Quality Management Council. The Association supports the 

reinstatement of the full $630,000 to fund this important project in the coming fiscal 

year. 

5. Upper Columbia United Tribes. These funds have been provided since fiscal 

year 1988 to the Kalispell, Kootenai, Spokane, and Coeur d’Alene Tribes to protect 

tribal hunting, fishing, and gathering rights and conservation projects in the Upper 

Columbia River Basin. The Association supports the reinstatement of the full 

$418,000 to fund this important project in the coming fiscal year. 

6. Wetlands/Waterfowl Management. Tribes in Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin have been provided vital funding, since fiscal year 1991, for wetland rehabilitation and enhancement in cooperation with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, designed to add tens of thousands of ducks and geese to spring and 

fall migrations. The Association supports the reinstatement of the full $600,000 to 

fund this important project in the coming fiscal year. 

While the Association is opposed to diversion of Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program funds for Tribal use, it is committed to adequate federal funding to 

provide for professional management of Tribal fish and wildlife resources. The Association believes that Native American Tribes have identified legitimate funding 

needs for fish and wildlife on millions of acres of Tribal lands. Adequate funding 

preserves and enhances the cultural heritage of Native American Tribes, while providing positive economic benefits, and ensuring the conservation of significant fish 

and wildlife resources. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERTRIBAL BISON COOPERATIVE

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

My name is Ervin Carlson, a Tribal Council member of the Blackfeet Tribe. I am 

President of the InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC). On behalf of our 51 member 

Tribes, I would like to thank the honorable members of the committee for this opportunity to provide written testimony. On behalf of ITBC, I would like to address 

the following issues: (1) Request an appropriation of $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2004, 

which is an increase of $1,250,000 over last year’s appropriation, (2) Explain to the 
293

committee ITBC’s unmet funding need of $19.4 million, and (3) Update the committee on ITBC’s present initiatives. 

The InterTribal Bison Cooperative (ITBC), located in Rapid City, South Dakota, 

is a Native American non-profit organization composed of 51 federally recognized Indian Tribes within a 17 state region. ITBC is dedicated to the development and restoration of buffalo on Indian lands for the economic, agricultural, environmental, 

spiritual and cultural purposes of Indian Nations. Additionally, ITBC acts as an informal guardian of the buffalo to promote, protect and preserve buffalo traditions 

within the United States. 

In 1992, ITBC was created as an initiative of the Bush Administration. The organization intended to promote development of Indian reservation lands that could not 

sustain other successful economic or agricultural projects. Often, Indian reservation 

lands were of a poor quality and not able to sustain any sort of farm, wildlife or 

livestock projects. Since buffalo had occupied these lands for centuries before they 

were hunted to near extinction in the 1800’s, ITBC believed buffalo could once again 

thrive successfully on reservation land. 

Buffalo provided subsistence to the Native people. In the Plains Indian culture, 

the buffalo provided food, housing, materials and tools used in daily life, and a 

philosophic and cultural basis for everyday life. Originally, ITBC was organized to 

preserve the sacred relationship between Indian tribes and the buffalo. Tribal buffalo operations are a logical extension of an historic way of life and also serve as 

a source of economic opportunities on tribal lands. Restoring these animals is critical to the health of Indian nations. Indian Tribes approach buffalo herd development with a seriousness and respect that other economic development projects may 

not receive. 

Today, as a result of federal appropriations and ITBC’s efforts, buffalo are once 

again thriving on tribal lands. ITBC has played a significant role in this restoration 

and is now making every effort to assure that the Tribal buffalo projects are economically sustainable. 

FUNDING REQUEST

The InterTribal Bison Cooperative respectfully requests an appropriation for fiscal 

year 2004 in the amount of $3,000,000. This amount is $1,250,000 above the fiscal 

year 2003 appropriation for ITBC and is greatly needed to maintain last years funding level and to help build economic sustainability to the Tribal projects. 

FUNDING SHORTFALL & UNMET NEED

In fiscal year 2003, the ITBC and its member tribes were funded through appropriations at $1,746,000. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2004 recommends a 

funding amount of $1,146,000 which is a decrease of $600,000 at a time when the 

current market price for buffalo is only 10 percent of the price three years ago. 

At the current level of funding, many of our member tribes cannot receive adequate technical assistance, product and resource development, nor do they receive 

funding for start-up or maintenance costs. 

ITBC is a cooperative with 100 percent of the appropriated funds going toward 

the support and development of Tribal buffalo herds and buffalo product business 

ventures. ITBC funding is distributed among all ITBC member Tribes. In fact, an 

important aspect of ITBC is the cooperative agreement that member Tribes have 

reached in regard to the sharing of ITBC funding. 

Each year, ITBC surveys all its member tribes to determine their unmet project 

needs. The current unmet need for ITBC tribal projects to fully develop is 

$19,378,367. I have attached the Tribal Bison Project Proposal summaries for your 

review, which details each of ITBC member tribe’s projects and financial need. 

ITBC GOALS & INITIATIVES

The immediate goal of ITBC is the restoration of the buffalo on Indian lands 

through the development of Tribal buffalo herds and related economic development 

projects. The ultimate goal is for Tribal buffalo herds to reach a point of self-sufficiency and once again become an economic cornerstone throughout Indian country. 

Economic Development. 

In 1991, seven Indian tribes had small buffalo herds, with a combined total of 

1,500 animals. Little or no economic development was taking place with the buffalo. 

ITBC has proven its success in restoration of tribal buffalo herds during its relatively short 10-year history. Today, with the support and technical assistance of 

ITBC, over 35 Indian Tribes are engaged in raising buffalo. There are approximately 

15,000 animals owned and managed by these Tribes. Many of these Tribal buffalo 
294

programs are on the verge of becoming fully self-sufficient and successful operations. 

Most important for the Tribal economies, a new industry has been born where previously none existed. Hundreds of direct and indirect jobs relating to the tribal buffalo industry have been created. The positive impact to Indian country has been unmistakable. 

However, in order to become fully self sufficient and sustainable the Tribes must 

be able to build a solid foundation for this new industry. ITBC provides critical assistance to member Tribes who must have sustainable management plans, infrastructure growth and development plans, training for the new jobs being created, 

and as the herds grow and develop, marketing plans as well. Therefore, in order 

to provide the necessary assistance ITBC is ready to begin a marketing initiative. 

Tribal Buffalo Marketing Initiative 

When the tribal buffalo are finally, ready for market, ITBC member tribes face 

yet another obstacle to economic success. Few meat processing plants exist that can 

process buffalo. The geographic isolation that is common to most of our Tribes, further compounds the problem by increasing operating costs and reduces the quality 

of the meat by introducing unnecessary and harmful stress to the animals. Because 

the Tribal buffalo are range fed many existing plants will not allow them to be processed. Therefore, ITBC supports the development of tribally owned processing facilities that will accept range fed buffalo and assure product identity and quality control. 

Currently, there is only one Indian-owned, USDA approved, meat-processing 

plant. This plant is located in Malta, Montana and was only recently acquired by 

the Ft. Belknap Tribe. The Tribe has requested the assistance of ITBC to build a 

sound infrastructure and to coordinate with other Tribes to process their buffalo, 

and help build a cooperative market for the Tribally produced range fed buffalo. 

ITBC is anxious to launch its marketing initiative by providing critical support to 

the Ft. Belknap Tribe in Montana. This project will begin the necessary infrastructure development that is so critical to sustainability. ITBC will assist with training 

for meat processing, cold storage facility development, help plan and upgrade the 

plant for buffalo, develop a distribution plan and system for Buffalo meat and byproducts, and develop a cooperative brand name with standards and labeling guarantees, similar to the Kosher Beef brand. The development of the Ft. Belknap plant 

will serve as a model for other Tribal processing plants that are on the verge of 

achieving USDA approval. The primary benefits of tribally owned buffalo processing 

plants is to maintain the integrity of the Tribally owned buffalo meat as a health 

benefit, to develop a culturally appropriate processing schedule and to provide sustainability to the Tribal buffalo projects. 

Preventive Health Care Initiative 

Another important aspect of ITBC’s economic development effort is to provide buffalo meat to reservation families and to re-educate tribal members to the health 

benefits of including buffalo meat in their diets. ITBC is working to provide better 

ways for reservation families to have easier access to purchase buffalo meat. In most 

cases, buffalo meat is not sold in small quantities at the grocery stores and convenience stores located on Indian reservations. When Native families purchase meat, 

often the only choice of meat available to them is the high fat, and high cholesterol, 

processed meats that most reservation stores stock. 

Current research indicates that the diet of most Indian families on the reservations, includes large amounts of high fat, processed meats, which contributes to diabetes and heart disease and other diet related health problems. 

ITBC is working on a health care initiative that will provide easier access to buffalo meat on the reservations, target those individuals with the greatest need, and 

to educate more Indian families of the health benefits of including range fed buffalo 

meat in their daily diets. 

SUPPORT FOR TRIBAL INITIATIVE

ITBC support for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead 

Reservation in their effort to assume management of buffalo in the National Bison 

Range as a compactable federal function under the 1994 Self-Governance Act. 

Tribal management of the National Bison Range would restore the relationship 

of buffalo with the Tribe on their ancestral land, allows the Tribe to assume management of their resources and save the government a significant amount of funding 

for the current management expenses. 
295

CONCLUSION

ITBC has demonstrated success over the years by assisting its member tribes 

with the restoration of buffalo to their native lands for cultural purposes and economic development. ITBC will continue to provide technical assistance and funding 

to its member tribes in order that they can restore and maintain tribal buffalo 

herds. 

Through the efforts of ITBC and its member tribes, new jobs have been created 

in the tribal buffalo industry resulting in new money for tribal economies. In addition, ITBC continues to support methods to market buffalo meat by providing easy 

access on the reservation and education efforts to the health benefits of buffalo meat 

in the Native diet. 

ITBC and its member tribes are appreciative of past and current support from the 

Congress and the Administration. I urge the committee to consider an increase to 

ITBC fiscal year 2004 appropriation so that the important work of restoring buffalo 

herds can continue without interruption, and so ITBC can help it’s member Tribes 

achieve sustainability. I would like to thank this Committee for the opportunity to 

present testimony regarding ITBC’s buffalo restoration efforts and resulting economic development opportunities. We invite the members of the Committee and 

their staff to visit one or more of the Tribal buffalo projects and to witness first 

hand their success. 

Questions and/or comments regarding any of the issues presented within this testimony may be directed to Mr. Ervin Carlson, President or to Mr. Fred DuBray, Executive Director at (605) 394–9730. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, I am Nolan Colegrove, Sr., President of the Intertribal Timber 

Council. I hereby submit the following requests for fiscal year 2004 BIA and U.S. 

Forest Service appropriations: (1) Provide a total increase of $7.5 million in BIA T.P.A Forestry, 

(2) Restore Endangered Species in Resources Management, Non-Recurring Pro- grams to $3,035,000, and add $3 million for unfunded ESA mandates, 

(3) In Forestry under Resources Management, Non-Recurring Programs—

—Add $25 million for Forest Development backlog elimination, 

—Add $6 million for Inventories and Plans to provide current management plans 

for all trust forest land, 

—Add $500,000 for Woodlands management, and 

—Support the $1 million increase for Integrated Resource Management Plans, 

(4) Add $1 million to Environmental Management in Non-Recurring Trust Services for cultural resources surveys, (5) Add $8 million to Cadastral Surveys in Non-Recurring Programs Real Estate Services, and add $1.5 million to Regional Office Operations Land Titles and 

Records, 

(6) Within Wildland Fire funding in the Bureau of Land Management, direct BIA 

to develop a Native American fire crew leadership training program, and 

(7) In the U.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry budget, create a line item for the expanded ‘‘Office of Tribal Relations’’ and add $1 million for its support. 

INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL BACKGROUND

The Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) is a twenty-seven year old organization of 

seventy forest owning tribes and Alaska Native organizations that collectively possess more than 90 percent of the 7.6 million timberland acres and a significant portion of the 9.5 million woodland acres that are under BIA trust management. These 

lands provide vitally important habitat, cultural and spiritual sites, recreation and 

subsistence uses, and through commercial forestry, income for the tribes and jobs 

for their members. In Alaska, the forests of Native corporations and thousands of 

individual allotments are equally important to their owners. To all our membership, 

our forests and woodlands are essential to our physical, cultural, and economic wellbeing, and their proper management is our foremost concern. 

(1) Provide a Total Increase of $7.5 million in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation Forestry 

The ITC appreciates the addition of $1,500,000 to the Tribal Priority Allocation 

Forestry budget approved by the Committee for fiscal year 2003. This was the first 

program increase since fiscal year 1995. For fiscal year 2004, we urge the Committee to increase the Forestry appropriation by $7.5 million to reflect a cumulative 
296

31.9 percent cost of living adjustment since fiscal year 1992 and a 7.5 percent increase in trust forest land acres. The resulting funding level of $37.3 million will 

only restore the BIA TPA Forestry program to the current equivalent of its fiscal 

year 1992 status, at which time the IFMAT report documented BIA Forestry funding as being grossly insufficient, with Indian forests receiving only 63 percent of the 

funding for timber production on National Forests, and only 35 percent of that for 

coordinated resources management. Adequate funding must be provided to enable 

the Department to fulfill its trust responsibilities for managing Indian forests. 

(2) Restore Endangered Species in Resources Management, Non-Recurring Programs, 

to $3,035,000 and add $3 million to Begin Fulfilling the Unfunded ESA Mandates 

We request that the Endangered Species item in the BIA’s Non-Recurring Programs Natural Resources budget be provided $6,035,000. This amount restores the 

northern spotted owl/marbled murrelet (NSO/MM) and Cheyenne River ferret programs back to their fiscal year 2002 level of $3 million ($1.6 million for the owl, 

$1.4 million for the ferret), plus $35,000 for cost of living adjustments, and then 

adds another $3 million to begin addressing unfunded tribal/BIA endangered species 

mandates. Congress started the NSO/MM program in 1991 to enable the BIA to fulfill its obligations after the owl and murrelet were listed under the ESA. BIA subsequently combined the NSO/MM with the ferret program. In fiscal year 2003, the Administration proposed eliminating both activities, but Congress partially restored 

the funding to $2,697,000. (As of this writing, we do not know how that amount will 

be distributed between the NSO/MM and ferret programs.) For fiscal year 2004, the 

Administration is requesting $2,198,000 for ESA activities, but we do not know how 

those funds are proposed to be spent. It is essential that funding to support ESA 

activities be restored. They are the only funds that have ever been specifically provided in the BIA’s budget for addressing the NSO/MM listings. Elimination of these 

funds would threaten ESA compliance activities and could potentially restrict or 

shut-down the timber harvesting that is essential to the economies of tribal communities. 

We request that ESA funding be fully restored for the NSO/MM and ferret programs to inflation adjusted levels provided for fiscal year 2002. We also request a 

further $3 million increase in the ESA budget item for management of other ESAlisted species throughout Indian Country. 

(3) In Forestry under Resources Management, Non-Recurring Programs—

Add $25 million for Forest Development backlog elimination 

Forest Development, one of four components in Non-Recurring Forestry, provides 

for thinning and planting on the 6 million acres of commercial trust forest land. As 

in fiscal year 2003, the fiscal year 2004 Forest Development request of approximately $9.6 million will only provide treatment on 50,000 acres, which is about the 

annual accrual of commercial forest acres in need of thinning and planting. The Administration’s budget requests nothing for reducing the backlog of 1.3 million acres. 

Some 22 percent of the trust commercial forest land base is now in need of thinning 

and planting. These acres are either underproductive or out of production altogether. To fulfill the federal government’s fiduciary obligation to ensure that all 

trust commercial forest land is productively utilized, we request an fiscal year 2004 

increase of $25 million to treat 130,000 backlog acres as a start on eliminating the 

backlog. 

Add $6 million for Inventories and Plans to provide current management 

plans for all trust forest land 

Forest Management Inventory and Planning (FMI&P), another component of NonRecurring Forestry, covers the costs of preparing forest inventories and plans that 

are required for the management of trust forests. According to the most recent BIA 

information, only 43 percent of all Indian trust forest lands, including woodlands, 

have current management plans. A November 13, 1998 Interior Solicitors’ Opinion 

holds that ‘‘Indian timber may not be harvested until an approved forest management plan has been established.’’ The absence of current management plans for 

more than half of all Indian trust forest land could damage the resources that comprise the trust corpus or even foreclose harvest on those lands. The consequences 

of the failure of the trustee to meet its fiduciary obligations would fall on Indian 

beneficiaries in terms of lost tribal jobs and increased stress on already scarce resources necessary to meet the financial, health, economic, education, and subsistence needs of tribal communities. To prevent such occurrences and for the U.S. to 

fulfill its trust responsibilities, we request that $6 million be added to the approxi-
297

mately $2 million fiscal year 2004 FMI&P request to begin providing current management plans for all trust forest lands. 

Add $500,000 for Woodlands management 

We request the addition of $500,000 for Woodlands Management, another component of Non-Recurring Forestry. Funding for the 9.4 million acres of Indian Woodlands has not changed since the program’s start in 1988. The current funding level 

only provides three woodlands managers in the Southwest and a very few on-theground projects. Just one quarter of these lands, often vital for subsistence purposes, are covered by management plans, and less than one half have resource inventories. An addition of $500,000 would increase staff for improved management 

and oversight, and enable badly needed management projects to be undertaken. 

Support the $1 million increase for Integrated Resources Management Plans 

The ITC supports the Administration’s proposed fiscal year 2004 $1 million increase for Integrated Resource Management Plans (IRMPs) for reservations. IRMPs 

are an essential element in modern natural resource management planning for 

BIA’s 56 million total acres in trust, including the 17.1 million forest land acres. 

We support the Administration’s request for a $1 million increase as an initial step 

towards supporting the development of IRMPs, although we believe the true needs 

for funding far exceed this amount. 

(4) Add $1 million to Environmental Management in Non-Recurring Trust Services 

for cultural resources surveys 

Indian lands are rich in historic artifacts and sensitive sites, and various federal 

laws, such as the Historic Preservation Act, NAGPRA, and NEPA, impose exacting 

requirements on land and resource managers. Cultural surveys generate the data 

that is essential for forest and other resource management plans, but BIA has never 

requested any funding to help meet those federal mandates. Accordingly, like last 

year, we request that $1 million be added to Environmental Management in NonRecurring Trust Resources for cultural resource surveys. 

(5) Add $8 million to Cadastral Surveys in Non-Recurring Programs Real Estate 

Services, and add $1.5 million to Regional Office Operations Land Titles and 

Records 

Reliable and accurate boundaries and clear, current title are essential for the 

management of Indian trust lands and resources. Without these two elements, the 

land’s use and management are clouded, its income subject to question, and its protection jeopardized. But Interior funding for these two critical elements has not been 

sufficient. A new BIA cadastral survey ranking system identified $30 million just 

in ‘‘priority’’ projects. To begin to address this problem, we suggest doubling the 

BIA’s fiscal year 2004 request to $16 million. We also ask that BLM, which for years 

has shirked its statutory responsibility to provide cadastral surveys for trust land, 

be directed to institute such a program as part of its baseline responsibilities. 

For Land Titles and Records, we ask an increase of $1.5 million, to renew the 

commitment started several years ago to improve the BIA’s ability to produce timely 

and accurate titles. Currently, BIA has 150,000 title documents that need to be recorded, and this case load is growing as demand continues to outstrip the BIA’s capacity. Accordingly, we ask that funding be increased by $1.5 million. 

(6) Within Wildland Fire funding in the Bureau of Land Management, direct BIA 

to develop a Native American fire crew leadership training program 

There is an increasing need for fire crew leadership training that, if not addressed, could endanger the safety and hinder the deployment of otherwise fully 

trained and able tribal fire crews. Native American crews constitute about 25 percent of the line fire fighter work force and a crew leadership training program in 

the BIA is essential to improve their safety and effectiveness. To help address this 

need, we ask that the BIA be directed to develop a Native American fire crew leadership training program. 

(7) In the U.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry budget, create a line item 

for the ‘‘Office of Tribal Relations’’ and add $1 million for its support 

Last mid-December, after several years of work by a USFS National Tribal Relations Program Task Force and its Implementation Team, the U.S. Forest Service decided to enhance its Office of Tribal Relations. The job announcement for the Office’s 

Director was issued March 18 and the Office will ultimately be staffed by six positions. We ask that $1 million be added to State and Private Forestry to fund the 

Tribal Relations Office. Tribes and the Forest Service share thousands of miles of 

common border. Tribes also have rights and interests on hundreds of thousands of 
298

Forest Service acres, and must confront numerous trans-boundary resource issues, 

including forest management and health, watershed, and wildlife. Yet, in the past, 

tribes and the Forest Service have failed to adequately coordinate their management approaches. Today, with new pressures on America’s resource base, and with 

emphasis on cohesive resource management strategies that transcend man-made 

boundaries, we are pleased that the Forest Service is actively reaching out to its 

tribal neighbors with an enhanced Office of Tribal Relations. We fully support the 

Tribal Relations Office, and ask Congress to support it as well. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE

This testimony is submitted by the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe regarding our 

funding priorities and requests on the fiscal year 2004 Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITY

$150,000 adjustment for the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe for Fisheries Management in the Point No Point Treaty Council (PNPTC) for the BIA fiscal year 2004 

Budget. 

LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest 

Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission. 

SELF-GOVERNANCE AND OTHER NATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment; 

2. Provide $5 million increase for BIA and $98 million for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC); 

3. Provide $4.5 million increase to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Tribal 

Self-Governance; 

4. Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth increase to maintain existing health care services; and, 

5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board. 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION JUSTIFICATION

For the last 25 years Western Washington tribes have struggled to meet our responsibilities for proper fisheries management which we incurred following the affirmation of our treaty fishing rights in the U.S. v. Washington Supreme Court decision. Following the Boldt Decision in the late 1970’s, PNPTC was formed by the 

Port Gamble S’Klallam, Lower Elwha Klallam and Skokomish tribes to conduct a 

professional biological and enforcement program, thereby insuring that the tribes 

could manage their fisheries activities responsibly and more efficiently through a 

consortium. 

Following our Tribal recognition in 1981, we joined the PNPTC consortium and 

requested funding from the BIA. PNPTC was then operating on behalf of the other 

three tribes at a funding level of $692,500 for fisheries services. Due to funding limitations, the BIA made the decision that adding Jamestown to the consortium could 

be accomplished without adding an equivalent share to PNPTC’s funding. The addition to services for Jamestown should have been a level of one-third of PNPTC’s 

budget, or $230,833. The BIA only added $133,000, a grossly deficient amount to 

meet our Treaty obligations. 

Currently, PNPTC is struggling to keep basic operations funded. Staff and other 

overall reductions in work hours have been necessary. These cuts greatly inhibit the 

tribes’ ability to meet our fisheries management obligations. A total of $150,000 increase is needed in order to bring Jamestown’s pass-thru funding up to the level 

equivalent to the other Tribes and to address the additional new responsibilities due 

to shellfish management and ESA obligations in the last 9 years. We are requesting 

a recurring base funding adjustment to our Self-Governance Funding Agreement to 

alleviate the funding pass-through inequity now experienced by the PNPTC member 

tribes. This will help to address the significant inter-tribal friction, as well as support hiring essential staff to operate our Iribal programs. 
299

LOCAL/REGIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe is a direct beneficiary of the collective Tribal efforts and continues to support the requests and recommendations of the Affiliated 

Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and 

the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. 

SELF-GOVERNANCE AND OTHER NATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustments.—This is the fifth year in a row that the 

Administration’s request contains no general increase for TPA. This activity includes the majority of the funds used to support on-going services at the local Tribal 

level including such programs as housing, education, natural resources management 

and Tribal government services. A Congressional Research Service Report on Indian-related federal spending trends for fiscal year 1975-fiscal year 2000 finds that 

increases in the combined BIA/Office of Special Trustee ‘‘current’’ dollars averaged 

$46 million per year. But as ‘‘constant’’ dollars (adjusted for inflation), there has actually been a decline of approximately $6 million per year. Over this 25-year period, 

the total is $150 million! At a minimum, the requested amount will provide for a 

modest 3.5 percent inflation adjustment for existing Tribal programs and services. 

Increase BIA and IHS Contract Support Cost (CSC) Funds to address documented 

need.—CSC funds are required for Tribes to successfully manage their own programs. While the Administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2004 includes a 

modest increase for CSC, an additional $98 million is needed in IHS and an additional $5 million increase is needed in BIA to fully fund CSC. This shortfall continues to penalize Tribes which elect to operate BIA and IHS programs under the 

self-determination policy. Further, this shortfall threatens to pit tribe against tribe 

as mature contractors are asked to absorb all inflationary increases in order to fund 

new contractors. Additional CSC appropriations are needed to implement the selfdetermination and self-governance policy as supported by Congress. We urge the 

Subcommittee to fully fund CSC for Tribes similar to how other contractors are 

funded within the federal government. 

Provide $4.5 million increase to the IHS Office of Tribal Self-Governance.—In fiscal year 2003, a total of $4.2 million was eliminated from the Office of Tribal SelfGovernance within the IHS budget. We believe that this decrease will severely impact IHS’s ability to fully implement the provisions of Title V of the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act, as amended. The IHS Office of Tribal 

Self-Governance was established in 1996 to advocate and implement the Self-Governance initiative within IHS. There are currently 285 Tribes (51.1 percent of all 

federally-recognized Tribes) implementing Self-Governance agreements. While the 

number of Self-Governance Tribes has and continues to increase, the staff and organizational capacity of OTSG has not. Additional funding is needed to increase the 

OTSG’s organizational capacity to meet the legal requirements of Title V and to protect and advance the Self-Governance initiative. 

Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth increase 

needed to maintain existing health care services.—The Administration’s request of 

$40 million in fiscal year 2004 is far short of the $360 million needed just to maintain current health care services. These costs are unavoidable and include medical 

and general inflation, pay costs and staff for recently constructed facilities. IHS and 

Tribal programs simply cannot afford to continue to lose real resources. Mandatories 

should be the first consideration in budget formulation. If unfunded, these cost increases will result in further health service reductions in our Tribal communities. 

In conclusion, we recognize that the Administration and Congress has placed a 

major priority on fighting the war against terrorism and protecting our homeland. 

However, the treaties and legislation, that tribal governments have fought so hard 

to achieve with the United States government, remain the basic foundation of our 

unique governmental relationship. We strongly urge this Subcommittee to honor 

these commitments and that tribal government operations be afforded the highest 

priority in your appropriation decisions. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR

CHIPPEWA INDIANS

As Chairman of the Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, 

located in Wisconsin, I am pleased to submit this written testimony which reflects 

the needs, concerns and issues of the Tribal membership arising from the Presi-
300

dent’s fiscal year 2004 Bureau of Indian Affairs and National Park Service Budget 

request.

Bureau of Indian Affairs Scholarships ................................................................................................................ $250,000 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Johnson O’Malley ......................................................................................................... 93,000 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Wetlands Waterfowl/Circle of Flight ............................................................................ 593,000 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Wildlife and Parks ....................................................................................................... 200,000 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Forestry ........................................................................................................................ 188,000 

National Park Service Historic Preservation ........................................................................................................ 275,000 

Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement ......................................................................................................... 800,000 

BIA-TPA Tribal Courts .......................................................................................................................................... 762,122 

INDIAN EDUCATION

Education of our tribal youth still continues to be the Band’s number one priority 

and we look to Congress to support us on this issue. In the past we have supported 

the President’s BIA budget on Indian Education, but this year most of the increases 

are associated with school construction ($292.7 million) and operation ($567 million). 

The Band is and has been requesting increased funding through the Administration’s Tribal Priority Allocation planning process in higher education and Johnson 

O’Malley, but has not been successful. So again, we are asking Congress to address 

this funding short-fall through the legislative process. 

The Band’s specific concern is the funding levels associated with higher education 

programs. There has not been an increase in the BIA’s higher education funding for 

seven (7) years. In the last three (3) years, the Band had 130 tribal members, who 

were not able to receive funding for college due to shortfalls. To fully support our 

eligible students, an additional $250,000.00 of funding for Lac du Flambeau is required. It should be noted to the members of this Committee, that like many other 

states, Wisconsin is having financial problems. Wisconsin’s financial woes are driving the cost of college tuition even higher, making our request of additional funding 

even more important. 

The Johnson O’Malley program has been under funded through the Tribal Priority 

allocation process and the Band has identified a funding shortfall. Our Education 

Program receives $55,967.00 to operate the JOM program in which we concentrate 

all our efforts and funding to high school students. We have 520 students in grade 

school that cannot be served by Johnson O’Malley because of the shortfall. To fully 

fund this program at Lac du Flambeau, an additional $93,000.00 would be required. 

NATURAL RESOURCES

The Lac du Flambeau Indian Reservation is located in northern Wisconsin and 

is in the heart of the north woods and lakes area. The reservation is 86,000 acres 

with 46,000 acres of forested land, 20,000 surface acres of water and 14,000 acres 

of wetland. The land, air and water resources and associated fish, wildlife and 

plants are very important to the well-being of the Band. Our wildlife and plant resources support a subsistence way of life, which is an integral part of our culture 

as well as our economy. The comprehensive Department includes the following programs: Fish Culture, Fisheries Management, Wildlife, Water Resources, Environmental Protection, Forestry, Conservation Law Enforcement, Land Management 

and Tribal Historic Preservation. The primary goal of all the programs is to assure 

that the natural and cultural resources; the Band’s most precious assets, are protected and preserved. The following lists our funding needs. 

Circle of Flight-Great Lakes Wetland/Water Fowl Management Program 

We strongly urge the Committee to restore $593,000.00 for the Great Lakes Wetland/Water Fowl Management Program (Circle of Flight) that the Administration 

proposes eliminating entirely again this year. The 107th Congress restored this important funding last year and the Lac du Flambeau Band would like to thank the 

Committee for understanding how important this program is in restoring and preserving our Nation’s wetlands and waterfowl populations. This program also gives 

Congress, the Great Lakes Region Tribes, States, USFWS, USDA, Ducks Unlimited 

and other private sector groups an opportunity to work cooperatively in projects that 

provide wetland protection, flood control, clean water and recreation in the Great 

Lakes Region. Your strong support of this program is required again. 

Wildlife and Parks 

The Band has a comprehensive Natural Resource Department and dedicated staff 

with considerable expertise in natural resource and land management. Our activities include raising fish for stocking, conservation law enforcement, data collection 
301

on water and air quality, developing well head protection plans, conducting wildlife 

surveys, and administering timber stand improvement projects on the 86,000 acre 

reservation. We urge this Committee to increase the Wildlife and Parks budget and 

set aside $200,000 for Lac du Flambeau ($100,000 for Tribal Fish Hatchery Operations and $100,000 for Tribal Management and Development). The Wildlife and 

Parks budget has not increased significantly since 1990. An increase will ensure we 

can maintain our current staff and critical natural resource programs. 

Forestry 

Within the 86,000-acre reservation, we have 46,000 acres of forested land that 

supports hunting and gathering opportunities for tribal members as well as logging. 

Proper management of the forest is essential to sustain our subsistence lifestyle, but 

also to provide economic growth for the Band. The Forestry Program, consisting of 

two (2) foresters and two (2) technicians, undertakes a broad range of management 

activities including tree planting, prescribed burning, timber road design and maintenance and timber sale administration. The Forestry Program is funded through 

the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) within the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, 

which has been historically under funded. The Band supports the Administration 

request of $1.5 million but wants Congress to understand that at the Tribal level, 

the $1.8 million increase last year only equaled $4,000.00 for our Forestry Department. Through the TPA planning process, the Band identified an unmet need of 

$107,000.00 just to support the current program. In order to increase forest development, timber sale management and wildfire control activities we urge the Committee to not only support the President’s budget but to earmark $188,000.00 for 

the Lac du Flambeau Forestry Department. This program has not received any substantial funding increases since 1991. 

TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION

The Lac du Flambeau Band is asking Congress to provide $9.9 million to be allocated within the Tribal Historic Preservation Fund. This would provide $275,000.00 

per Tribal Historic Preservation Office, a dollar amount almost, but less than, a 

state’s share. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND COURTS

At Lac du Flambeau we are fortunate to have a police department that is able 

to ensure a safe community for our members. For instance in 2002, the Lac du 

Flambeau Tribal Police Department logged 26,687 man-hours answering 4,018 complaints. The 12, member Police Department consists of 11 full time officers and one 

(1) administrative assistant responding to calls ranging from domestic violence to 

juvenile cases including runaways, burglary, fraud, battery and vandalism. The Lac 

du Flambeau Tribal Police not only respond to tribal complaints, but also provides 

services to the non-Indian community as well. 

The Lac du Flambeau Tribal Police Department is in dire need of space. Currently, a 50-year-old converted hardware store is housing the Tribal Court System, 

Tribal Attorney’s Office, Probation and Parole Department, Child Support Agency, 

the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission Wardens and Tribal Police. 

The cramped conditions do not allow our police officers to conduct private interviews 

without compromising confidentiality. The lack of an interview area jeopardizes the 

officer’s ability to solve cases and is time consuming, because not more than one person can be interviewed at a time. The Lac du Flambeau Band needs a new Police 

Department building. It is estimated that the new building will cost $800,000.00 

and we respectfully request Congress to help us in our effort to provide adequate 

space for the Police Department. 

Our Lac du Flambeau Tribal Court System includes a Chief Judge, two (2) Associated Judges, Tribal Attorney/Prosecutor, Clerk of Courts, Deputy Clerk and Truancy 

Officer. In fiscal year 2002, our Court System had 1,148 cases filed and conducted 

2,355 hearings. Cases ranged from Children and Family cases to on and off reservation conservation/natural resource violations. Throughout Indian country, tribal 

courts are severely under funded and yet continue to fulfill a critical role in bringing 

justice to our communities. It is vital that these courts start to receive the funding 

that they need. Currently, the Band is receiving $77,000.00 from the BIA to support 

our court system. This only represents 9 percent of the total Tribal Court operating 

budget. Thus, the Band respectfully requests Congress to support the President’s 

proposed fiscal year 2004 Budget of $17 million for Tribal Courts. Any additional 

Congressional funding support would be greatly appreciated as well. It should be 

noted that Lac du Flambeau did not receive an increase in fiscal year 2003 even 

though there was $17 million allocated. 
302

TRIBAL PRIORITY ALLOCATION

The Band supports the $2.1 million increase, but urges the Committee to consider 

additional increases for these vital programs, since at the tribal level we are not 

realizing any significant funding increases. 

GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

The Band supports the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission request 

of $3.966 million, to meet the needs in the Commission’s testimony submitted to the 

Committee. 

INDIAN LAND CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM

We would urge the Committee to support the $21 million increase the Administration proposes. We suggest that in order to improve upon the implementation of this 

Project, Congress allow tribes to administer the project through a Public Law 93–

638 contract or some other cooperative agreement. We believe the Tribes can more 

efficiently implement this vital program. 

STATE TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANT AND LANDOWNER INCENTIVE PROGRAM

We strongly support the continuation of State and Tribal Wildlife Grant and program ($5 million tribal set-aside) and the Landowner Incentive Program (overall 

$50 million). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE

The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe submits this written statement to request funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service in the fiscal 

year 2004 Appropriations bill. 

First and foremost, we would like to express our sensitivity to the tasks that you 

are currently under taking. While addressing the matters associated with the 

United States being at war, you must continue to conduct the business of the domestic agenda as well. You have our blessings and are in our prayers during these 

most turbulent times. 

TRIBAL REQUESTS

Request $19.5 Million for Elwha River Restoration to the National Park Service 

Account; and, 

Request $4 Million for Land Acquisition authorized in Public Law 102–495 to the 

Office of Trust Responsibility’s Realty Office Account. 

REGIONAL REQUESTS

Restore $320,000 to the Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights account; 

Restore $550,000 for Western Washington tribal shellfish management and enforcement; 

$6.3 million to implement tribal treaty rights in tribal shellfish programs; 

$22 million for federal contribution of Tribal/Growers shellfish settlement; 

Restore $3.0 million Forest Development, Woodland Management, Northwest Forest Plan, Jobs in the Woods and Wild Stock Restoration Initiative; 

Restore $3.1 million for the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Forest and Fish Report; $1.0 

million Increase for Timber-Fish-Wildlife ESA Obligations under new state and private forest practices rules and regulations; 

Increase Hatchery Cyclical Maintenance/Rehabilitation funding to $2.5 million 

with language; and, 

Support the requests of the Point-No-Point Treaty Council, Affiliated Tribes of 

Northwest Indians, and the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board. 

NATIONAL REQUESTS

The BIA and IHS are preparing to re-organize. We are concerned that this will 

come at the expense of diminishing tribal programs and the delivery of tribal services. Therefore, we ask that the Subcommittee include language directing both the 

BIA and IHS not to reduce funds appropriated by this Subcommittee to offset Departmental or agency shortfalls, to support reorganization plans, or trust reform initiatives without consulting with Tribal Leadership. This language should be included in future appropriations bills for these agencies; 
303

Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment; Provide $5 million increase for BIA and $98 million for IHS to support 100 percent funding of Contract Support Cost (CSC); Restore $4.5 million increase to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Tribal 

Self-Governance; Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth increase 

to maintain existing health care services; and, 

Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress of American 

Indians and National Indian Health Board. 

SPECIFIC TRIBAL REQUESTS JUSTICATION

$19.95 million (∂$7 million more than President’s Budget) 

In the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget package, there was a request of $12.95 

million for the Lower Elwha Tribe River Restoration Project. We are requesting an 

additional $7 million to support the timelines identified in the project design. 

The Administration’s requested funding level will not allow the Project to proceed 

on schedule and this will require additional cost. The current project has been budgeted for $19.95 million and delays will subject this amount to inflation and other 

cost increases associated with construction projects. The Tribe and the National 

Park Service have reviewed the Restoration Project budget throughout the preliminary stages. In order to alleviate the likelihood that additional requests for funds 

to support the conduct of tasks identified for this phase of the project, we encourage 

the Subcommittee to fund the project at the increased level of $19.95 million in fiscal year 2004. 

There are many functions included in the Project such as the required modifications to the Army Corp of Engineer’s flood control levy, designing our water supply 

system and the design and construction of our hatchery, flood protection assessments, identifying and designing a septic system & wastewater alternatives for 

homes on the reservation, resources for habitat restoration, performing a coast line 

assessment and designing a plan to restore aquatic life. These are but a few of the 

many tasks to be performed within a timeframe that supports the overall conduct 

of this Project. 

$4 million for Land Acquisition as Authorized in Public Law 102–495

In Public Law 102–495, to restore Olympic National Park and the Elwha River 

Ecosystem and Fisheries in the State of Washington, there was an authorized 

amount of $4 million for land acquisition for the Tribe. It has been more than a 

decade since this law was enacted and the Tribe is consistently requested these 

funds. 

This acquisition is yet another component of this major River Restoration Project. 

We request that the Subcommittee appropriates the $4 million for land acquisition 

to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Trust Responsibility, Division of Reality 

Services. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LOWER LAKE RANCHERIA KOI NATION

The Lower Lake Rancheria Koi Nation (‘‘Tribe’’) in California, is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe, located in Northern California. Through administrative error 

and neglect by the Federal Government, for many years, our Tribe was wrongly 

omitted from the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) listing of federally-recognized Indian tribes. 

After years of intensive efforts, the error was acknowledged and our Tribe’s federally-recognized status was reaffirmed. On December 29, 2000, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs ordered that our Tribe be returned to the official list of 

federally-recognized Indian Tribes. Even so, it was not until a year and a half 

later—July 12, 2002—that our Tribe was once again included on the official list. 

During the time our Tribe was erroneously omitted from the listing, we were ineligible for federal funding, such as basic health care services from the Indian 

Health Services, and deprived of our Government-to-Government relationship with 

the Federal government. Once the error was acknowledged and our Tribe was added 

to the list, the Department of the Interior informed us that we would be included 

in the funding for ‘‘New Tribes.’’ Because the fiscal year 2002 budget had already 

been prepared, however, we were told we would have to wait until fiscal year 2003. 

Nonetheless, for unknown reasons, the Department zeroed-out funding for ‘‘New 

Tribes’’ in both the fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 budgets. 
304

Historically, the Department of the Interior has funded newly recognized and restored Indian Tribes under the ‘‘New Tribes’’ line item of their budget. ‘‘New Tribes’’ 

have been provided a baseline of $160,000 a year to support basic governmental operations. While an almost insignificant amount in relation to the Department’s overall budget, this funding is vitally important to the newly restored Tribes and will 

be vital to our Tribe’s goal of providing basic governmental services, such as health 

care, housing, and educational assistance, to our members. 

Funding is needed for basic governmental purposes as the Tribe transitions to the 

BIA’s annual Tribal Priority Allocation funding. As a federally-recognized Indian 

tribe, the Lower Lake Rancheria Koi Nation enjoys a government-to-government relationship with the United States. The Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs’ reaffirmation of the Tribe’s federally-recognized status, and our addition to the official listing of federally-recognized Tribes, makes the Tribe eligible for federal funding, such 

as ‘‘New Tribes’’ money. Provision of such funding is in furtherance of the federal 

government’s trust responsibility to Indian tribes. 

REQUESTED APPROPRIATION

In accordance with the commitments made by the Department of the Interior, the 

Lower Lake Rancheria respectfully requests $320,000 (to cover $160,000 in baseline 

funding for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004) to support its governmental operations under the ‘‘New Tribes’’ funding in the Interior Appropriations Bill. 

In addition to the Lower Lake Rancheria, five other Tribes: the Graton Rancheria 

of California, the Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, the King Salmon Tribe and the 

Shoonaq’ Tribe of Kodiak, both from Alaska, and the Cowlitz Tribe of Washington, 

were added to the 2002 listing of federally recognized Indian Tribes. The Lower 

Lake Rancheria also urges restoration of funding for these similarly situated Tribes. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Committee on this important matter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LUMMI NATION

My name is Darrell Hillaire, Chairman of the Lummi Nation and I would like to 

thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to present written testimony. The 

Lummi Nation, is located on the northern coastline of Washington State, and is the 

third largest tribe in Washington State serving a population of over 5,200. 

On behalf of the Lummi Nation I want to thank you and the members of the Committee for their kind attention and assistance provided to the Lummi Nation in the 

past and the opportunity to express our concerns and requests regarding the fiscal 

year 2004 BIA, IHS appropriation allocations and special earmarks. The following 

written testimony presents the Lummi Nation funding priorities, as well as regional 

and national concerns and recommendations for your consideration. 

The Lummi Nation desires to strengthen our long-standing government-to-government relationship with federal officials to work through the consultation process 

and/or formal hearings for policy decisions impacting the Lummi people. Further, 

the Lummi Nation strongly opposes any bill, language or legislative riders that undermine tribal sovereignty or restrict tribal governments from protecting or exercising treaty rights. 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION PRIORITIES

1. ∂$750,000 Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning & Engineering.—Provide 

the Lummi Nation with an earmarked allocation of funds from the IHS Sanitation 

Facilities Construction program or USDA Rural Development program to support 

the planning and engineering of water and sewage system infrastructure improvements. The tribe’s current water and sewer system is nearing threshold operational 

capacity and utilizes dated industrial technology’ that is over 25 years old. Future 

tribal community development and economic growth is jeopardized without this financing. 

2. ∂$1,150,000 BIA Economic Development Program.—Lummi Nation is requesting resources to establish a Small Business Development Office to provide over 500 

‘‘dislocated’’ fisherman with economic and business assistance services from: technical assistance, support services, training services, business planning, and loan 

services. 

3. ∂$140,000 BIA-Office of Indian Education Programs, Facility Management and 

Construction Contract (FMCC) for provision of ‘‘Quarters’’.—Lummi Nation seeks 

funds to cover planning and construction costs for development of school based hous-
305

ing units through the BIA-FMCC ‘‘Quarters program’’ that remains an unbudgeted 

need. 

4. ∂$1,500,000 Semiahmah Memorial Park and Heritage Center.—Provide the 

Lummi Nation with National Park Service, Conservation and Historical Preservation construction program funds. Provide the Lummi Nation with initial planning 

and design phase funding for a Semiahmah Memorial Park and Heritage Center 

preserve ancestral burial grounds that were desecrated by non-Indian officials in 

1999 and to commemorate this traditional village encampment. 

5. ∂$700,000 Increase to Lummi Nation Shellfish Hatchery Operation.—Provide 

support to the development of the tribal shellfish hatchery to address identified 

weather related market access problems that have effectively stopped the development of the shellfish hatchery. The Hatchery is critical the ability of Tribal fishers 

to generate family income from the harvest of shellfish, as provided in the Pt. Elliot 

Treaty, the right to harvest and manage shellfish resources. 

6. ∂$740,000 Support Realty.—Provide the Lummi Nation with funding to ensure 

the major elements such as land consolidation, land records management, tribal probate, and training services are available to effectively manage tribal realty resources. 

7. ∂500,000 Lummi Youth Safe House.—Provide Lummi Nation with funds to design and construct a youth ‘‘safe-house’’ for the provision of emergency ‘‘holistic’’ 

care, shelter and/or wrap-around social and health services for youth living in the 

Lummi community. 

8. ∂$1,300,000 BIA Tribal Government Services—Water Negotiations.—Provide 

for the following water negotiation costs: $300,000 for attorney fees, $400,000 for onReservation technical studies, and $600,000 for Nooksack River Basin technical 

studies. 

9. ∂$1,076,000 BIA-Financial and Social Service ‘‘General Assistance’’ program.—

Funds for the Lummi Nation to effectively respond to a critical need for tribal fisherman to receive disaster relief assistance. This aids the tribe and fisherman to recover from the cumulative impact (1999–2001) of unrealized revenue from the local 

commercial fishing industry. 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION SUMMARIES, JUSTIFICATION

1. Water & Sewer Infrastructure Planning & Engineering—∂$750,000 

The Lummi Reservation supports a population of nearly 5,200 persons, which has 

pushed water and sewer system capacities to their limit. Additional capacity must 

be obtained now to support the existing population. In the short-term, water and 

sewer systems redesign and upgrades will handle the problem. However, the longterm solution must include additional treatment capacity and water source location 

and development. Public Works infrastructure development and investments like 

these require substantial planning. The Lummi Nation is not able to undertake this 

level of planning without the assistance requested herein. Lummi Nation recommends the IHS Sanitation Facilities Construction Program to receive earmarked 

funds to support tribal planning of water delivery and sewage treatment system infrastructure for the existing and projected population of the Lummi Indian Reservation. 

2. BIA Economic Development Program—∂$1,150,000 

Lummi Nation is seeking funds to create a tribal Small Business Development Office to provide fisherman with economic and business training technical assistance 

services. Approximately $250,000 is requested to establish the Small Business Development Office with the goal of aiding fisherman to maximize profits horizontally 

within the fish marketing industry and/or create new small businesses to sustain 

self-sufficiency. Another $900,000 is requested form the BIA Credit Services program to enable the Lummi Nation to establish a fisherman revolving loan fund to 

enable participants to access development capital to support their small business 

plans. 

3. BIA-Office of Indian Education Programs, Facility Management and Construction 

Contracts (FMCC) for provision of ‘‘Quarters’’—∂$140,000 

Lummi Nation seeks additional finances to cover planning and construction costs 

for development housing units through the BIA-FMCC Quarters program that remains an unbudgeted need. Lummi Nation new school facility exists in a rural area 

and is eligible to receive construction revenue for housing units for administrative 

and security staffing needs. No funds are allocated to fulfill the Lummi Nation need 

for the provision of staff quarters. 
306

4. Semiahmoo Memorial Park and Heritage Center—∂$1,500,000 

Provide the Lummi Nation with National Park Service, Conservation and Historical Preservation construction program funds. Provide the Lummi Nation with initial planning and design phase one funding for construction of a Memorial Park and 

Heritage Center to commemorate and preserve ancestral burial grounds that were 

desecrated by non-Indian officials in 1999. The National Park Service, National Registry of Historic Places, lists the site. The desecration of over 100 human remains 

and graves was primarily due to the expansion of a local sewage treatment plant 

financed with federal funds and permitted by the state. The Lummi Nation has created a Memorandum of Agreement that possesses terms to relocate the existing nonIndian treatment plant. The Memorial Park is to be constructed on the existing site 

as a unique tribute to promote regional education of the traditional Indian encampments reflecting the culture and lifestyle of the Coastal Salish people in Northwest 

America. Planning and design of a Heritage Center is envisioned to house social, 

economic and educational events and meetings. 

5. BIA Office of Indian Education Programs—∂$2,000,000 

Lummi Nation seeks increased school operational revenue to cover increased expenditures for the new tribal school in fiscal year 2004. The new school is projected 

to house 750 students that is over three times the current Lummi Tribal School student population. The Lummi Nation anticipates that the new school shall need increased funds to cover expanded operational expenses in the areas of: Administrative Cost Grants, Maintenance and Improvement funds, Transportation services; 

Special Education funds; High School and Tribal school operational funds. The 

Lummi Nation is reporting that this large school facility requires additional revenue 

to provide quality educational services. 

6. Lummi Nation Shellfish Hatchery Operation—∂$700,000 

The thirty-year old hatchery supplies oyster and clam seeds to a majority Northwest Washington Indian tribes and growers. The need to provide both the treaty 

and non-treaty growers for oyster seed, clam seed, enhancement projects. These 

projects benefit both the tribal government and Washington State. The Lummi Nation recommends that $350,000 increase be earmarked to Lummi Nation through 

the BIA Hatchery Operational program and an additional $350,000 be provided 

through the BIA Economic Development Program to support planning, development 

and constructing covered all weather loading, unloading and staging areas and access road improvements from the Hatchery to the State Highway. 

7. Support Realty—∂$740,000

The Lummi Nation has a multi-year plan to address the realty tribulations. The 

major elements include land consolidation, land records management, tribal probate 

process, revision of realty procedures, backlog elimination, and training. Land consolidation requires untangling the heir ship disarray by conducting research to land 

titles, appraisals, surveys, subdivision and other technical work. Land records management requires development of a tribal land database with electronic connection 

to BIA databases. Existing process of tribal probates is time consuming and a contributive factor land is so fractionated. Development of an on-site process using 

Lummi Tribal Court is needed to shorten the processing time. 

8. Lummi Youth Safe House—∂$500,000 

Provide the Lummi Nation with a Family-centered Youth Facility to provide a 

continuum of care to ‘‘At-risk’’, Homeless and/or Runaway adolescents. The primary 

components of this continuum are screening, intervention, substance prevention, 

respite and after-care services consistent to youth needs. Participating youth are 

supported through center-based continuum and wrap around social/health services’ 

to overcome barriers to achieve their goals. Lummi youth entering and/or completing treatment successfully make the transition to return to daily life through a 

traditional holistic’ approach towards recovery involving family members and dependency counselors. 

9. Water Negotiations—∂$1,300,000 

The Lummi Nation signed an Agreement in Principle with the Federal Government and the State of Washington on January 27, 1998. This agreement is a stepping stone toward a final settlement of the ‘‘on’’-reservation water rights conflict, 

which were and still are, attributable to the non-Indians disregard for treaty-reserved water and fishing rights in the Nooksack River Watershed. Many difficult 

issues remain to be resolved which require significant technical studies and legal 

consultation before a final agreement may be produced and signed. To complete this 

work the Lummi Nation is requesting $1.3 million during fiscal year 2003: $300,000 
307

to defray legal consultation costs, $400,000 for on-reservation technical studies, and 

$600,000 for technical studies in the Nooksack River Basin. Lummi Nation recommends BIA provide the tribe with special earmark to support the increase in the 

Water Rights Negotiation/Litigation, Attorney fees and technical studies. 

10. BIA-Financial and Social Service ‘‘Disaster Assistance’’ program—∂$1,076,000 

Lummi Nation seeks disaster relief assistance to 500 fishermen to meet their 

basic needs for housing, food and clothing assistance. These funds enable the tribe 

to fulfill a critical need of tribal fisherman to receive disaster assistance in response 

to unrealized revenue. The Lummi Nation has historically relied upon the salmon 

resource that possesses a cultural and economic value to the tribal membership, 

which is irreplaceable. The Lummi tribe and U.S. Department of Commerce declared the sockeye commercial fishery as a fishery resource disaster under the Magnuson Stevens Act. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

The Mescalero Apache Tribe (‘‘Tribe’’) is seeking $250,000 for operational funding 

in fiscal year 2004 for the Mescalero Fish Hatchery. The Hatchery will provide fish 

to more than a dozen Indian Tribes in the Southwest for stocking Tribal lakes and 

restoring native fish, and serves as an important economic development engine for 

our Tribe as well as for those served by the facility. 

BACKGROUND

On March 24, 1964, the Tribe entered into a lease with the United States Fish 

& Wildlife Service (‘‘FWS’’) for the operation of the Mescalero National Fish Hatchery (NFH) on the Mescalero Apache Reservation in the south central part of the 

State of New Mexico. On October 1, 1965, the Service commenced operations at the 

Mescalero NFH. For over thirty-five (35) years, the hatchery served as a primary 

economic engine for many tribal recreational and tourism programs providing 

stockable fish to fourteen (14) Indian Tribes and Pueblos in New Mexico, Arizona, 

and Southern Colorado. 

For the past fifty (50) years, the primary policy goal of the Department of the Interior has been to ensure maximum participation of the Indian Tribes including the 

eventual transfer of the fishery facilities to Tribes. Yet, the Department has struggled with how to implement its policy supporting the stocking of fish in Tribal waters and providing the associated technical assistance to the Tribal Governments. 

FWS has budgeted for the stocking of fish in Tribal waters and related technical 

assistance since the 1950’s. In the mid-1970’s, FWS began phasing out these programs, and during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, it adopted a policy of requiring 

full reimbursement for services delivered to Indian Tribes, terminated many of its 

tribal assistance operations, and submitted budgets proposing to close numerous 

fish hatcheries and fisheries assistance office that had long served Tribal needs. Evidently, the evolution of FWS policy emphasizing the recovery of species listed under 

the Endangered Species Act and the restoration of native species have become FWS 

priorities that have outweighed the need to adequately support Tribal fisheries programs. 

In the midst of FWS downsizing and funding shortfalls for the national fish hatchery system, the BIA created the Division of Fish, Wildlife and Recreation in 1982, 

which focused on contracting fish and wildlife resource operations directly with Indian Tribes, rather than trying to duplicate the assistance program that FWS had 

been providing. To prevent the closure of key FWS fish hatchery serving Tribes, including the Mescalero NFH, BIA’s Division of Fish, Wildlife and Recreation entered 

into annual memorandums of agreement (MOA) with the FWS for the continued operation of these hatcheries. Through the MOA, BIA provided in fiscal year 1987 $1.3 

million and 29 FTEs to the FWS for ten facilities, including $211,000 and 5 FTEs 

for the Mescalero NFH. In 1988, Congress transferred to FWS funds from BIA for 

6 of the 10 facilities covered by the MOA, and directed FWS to contract with the 

affected Tribes served by each facility, when so requested, and to work with the 

Tribes in moving toward tribal control of the program as quickly as possible. Similar 

report language was included in the fiscal year 1989 and fiscal year 1990 appropriations. 

In the fiscal year 1996 budget, FWS again proposed the closure of the Mescalero 

NFH or to transfer operations to the State of New Mexico as part of a broader effort 

to redirect funding to meet otherwise ‘‘higher priority’’ federal responsibilities of the 
308

NFH system. In response BIA proposed that FWS transfer funding for the Mescalero NFH to BIA for the purpose of the BIA sustaining operations of the facility 

until a contract transferring the facility to the Mescalero Apache Tribe could be finalized. However, at Congressional direction, the FWS continued to operate the facility. 

In 1999, a fire burned the watershed above the Mescalero NFH resulting in flooding and mudslides causing damage to the hatchery grounds, and killing many trout. 

In addition, FWS lack of adequate operational and maintenance funding over the 

years caused certain physical problems such as high radon levels in the hatchery 

buildings, high nitrogen levels in the water, hard water that resulted in formation 

of kidney stones in older fish, and cracking raceways and buildings caused by unstable soil. 

At the request of FWS, the Mescalero Apache Tribal Council agreed to FWS’s proposal ‘‘to temporarily suspend operations’’ of the facility so that the FWS could address these deteriorating conditions. In November 2000, FWS suspended operations 

at the Mescalero NFH, but rather the repairing the facility as it had pledged to do, 

FWS decided to permanently close the hatchery. FWS stripped the facility of all 

equipment and most of the fixtures, reassigned personnel and reprogrammed 

$392,400 appropriated specifically for the Mescalero NFH to address other Service 

program priorities. 

The Tribe has since terminated the lease with the FWS and has been working 

to resume operations of the facility under Tribal control and management, in a concerted effort with the affected Southwest Indian Tribes that had received fish from 

the Mescalero NFH. Specifically, our Tribe along with the other affected Tribes in 

the Southwest have organized the Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission (SWTFC) 

as a long-term approach and strategy for assuming primary authority and responsibility for stocking and managing Tribal waters in the Southwest. Our Tribe entered 

into a Public Law 93–638 self-determination contract with the BIA to organize the 

SWTFC., This approach fulfills the congressional goal of Tribal contracting of related resource management functions, operations and programs without diminishing 

the Department’s responsibility to protect the resources and sovereignty of the affected Tribes. 

The combined efforts of the Southwest Tribes through the SWTFC with the goal 

of economic self-sufficiency supports the diversification of tribal economies, an endeavor that will not only benefit the reservations but also the surrounding regions 

and the entire state. A key component to the Tribes efforts through the SWTFC is 

the successful operation of the Mescalero fish hatchery, and the Williams Creek/

Alchesay program on the White Mountain Apache Reservation. 

CURRENT STATUS

The Tribe secured a grant from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) 

in the Department of Commerce to develop a business plan for the operation and 

construction of the hatchery. New Mexico State University (NMSU) College of Business Administration is assisting the Tribe with this business plan. The Tribe’s fisheries consultant, FishPro, Inc., based in Santa Fe, New Mexico is providing the technical and scientific expertise in this process. The business plan will include the 

goals and objectives of the project and the study will provide an in-depth analysis 

of the facility, the water supply, permitting requirements, schematic design work 

and estimated construction costs. The study will also provide an examination and 

analysis of the marketing conditions as well as financial, accounting and management plans. In this process, the Tribe is working with the SWTFC to ensure that 

the needs of the affected Southwest Tribes are included in the planning and development process. 

The business plan is scheduled to be completed by the end of August 2003 and 

will be the justification to obtain construction funding from the EDA. The Tribe will 

complete the final design work and may proceed with a design/build-out approach. 

The Tribe is aiming for early Spring 2004 to beginning raising fish and resuming 

operations at the facility. 

USE OF APPROPRIATIONS

Based on our current course, the Tribe estimates that we will need $250,000 to 

cover operational costs for the remaining part of fiscal year 2004 after the construction is completed. The Tribe will use the funds for hiring and training of staff prior 

to commencement of operations, as well as purchasing of supplies, equipment, and 

conducting ‘‘dry runs’’ in preparation for operations. The Tribe will also be working 

with NMSU, SWTFC, FWS, and BIA to increase our capacity and ensure the success of this project. 
309

CONCLUSION

In the past, Congress vested funding for these endeavors with the BIA, and then 

with the FWS. Due to competing policies and funding priorities, the Mescalero NFH 

fell into disrepair and eventually closed causing hardship to the Mescalero Apache 

Tribe and the many other Tribes that relied on the facility. By contrast, our Tribe 

has a long record of economic success and management capability, and we are prepared to assume the primary role in the management and control of the facility, as 

intended by Congress. In accordance with the Government-to-Government relationship the Tribes have with the Federal Government, we will also be working with 

the federal agencies on building our capacity to conduct these activities. To assist 

us in achieving our goals of Tribal economic development and self-sufficiency, we 

need the funding to resume operations of this important facility. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this written testimony. For additional 

information contact: Sara Misquez, President, Mescalero Apache Tribe at (505) 464–

9969 or the Tribe’s Washington D.C. counsel Shenan Atcitty at (202) 457–7128. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE

As Chief Sachem, Matthew Thomas, of the Narragansett Indian Tribe, located 

near Charlestown, Rhode Island, I would like to submit these written remarks concerning the fiscal year 2004 BIA and IHS Appropriations. Our tribe operates more 

than a dozen BIA-funded programs serving our more than 2,600 members as well 

as a comprehensive health program funded by the IHS including a 5,000 square foot 

outpatient health clinic. We are proud of the accomplishments we have made over 

the years and look forward to a day when we are less dependent on Federal appropriations to finance the basic governmental services we provide. Despite many efforts, we lack reliable alternate resources to finance the growing needs of our Tribe. 

Federal appropriations remain critical to the health and well being of our members. 

We seek increases to the IHS appropriation, the BIA’s Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, and the BIA Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA), which funds our tribally operated programs which we perform under a Public Law 93–638 self-determination contract. 

We seek increased appropriations for law enforcement, education, a daycare center, and social services. 

LAW ENFORCEMENT—($559,000 INCREASE SOUGHT)

The Narragansett Indian Tribe seeks to hire four more patrol officers and one dispatcher to provide quality law enforcement services to the tribe and funds to cover 

a 10 × 40 trailer which presently houses our police department. At the present time 

our goal is to provide 24-hour law enforcement services to the reservation. Due to 

lack of manpower, vacations and sick leave, it is not being accomplished. Through 

a Justice Department COPS grant and reprogramming of our TPA funds we have 

a law enforcement department of 1 Police Chief, 1 Lieutenant, 1 Sergeant, 1 dispatcher and 5 tribal police officers. All Tribal Officers are also commissioned Deputy 

Special Officers of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The Narragansett Indian Tribal Police patrol approximately 1,944 acres of Trust 

and Reservation land and another 399 acres of fee land all of which has buildings 

plus living quarters and other facilities on the same. Presently, there are five tribal 

occupied houses on the reservation. Within the next few months there will be another five units. HUD has also approved the renovation of another 12 units, plus 

the addition of 38 more units within the next three years. These units will house 

approximately 180–200 tribal elders and members. This project is all on Narragansett Indian land, which will require additional Tribal Police coverage during renovation and construction. Furthermore, the location of the Tribe’s land in the midst of 

a densely populated area creates unique enforcement and safety issues that are not 

common elsewhere. History has shown all too clearly that the Tribe cannot rely on 

the local communities to place a priority on safeguarding the interest of Tribal members or Tribal lands. 

At the present time, the Narragansett Tribal Police has one dispatcher to cover 

the busy daytime hours. In 1999, the Narragansett Tribal Police handled 91 incidents; in 2002 the Department handled 376 incidents. This number represents a 300 

percent increase. Therefore, another dispatcher is needed for the evening hours. 

Despite a concerted effort by the Tribe, the State Police and the Town of Charlestown have not agreed to enter into a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) concerning public safety issues, which place a greater burden on our existing Tribal Police Department. 
310

Congress has long recognized that if Indian Tribes are to improve reservation conditions they must first have in place the necessary infrastructures which include 

adequate law enforcement services, basic human services, roads, safe water and 

waste disposal systems. Congress has long recognized that only when these are in 

place are tribes ‘‘in the best position to implement economic development plans, taking into account the available natural resources, labor force, financial resources and 

markets’’. S. Rep. 274, 100th Cong, 4 (1987) we encourage congress to put teeth behind these words by supporting increases in BIA Indian Country Law Enforcement 

Initiative in a manner that will assist us to increase our ranks to a more appropriate level. The three-year costs of the 4 officers with uniform and equipment will 

be $480,000 and the dispatcher for a three year period with uniform will be $79,000 

for a total of $559,000. 

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

The education department is comprised of the following bureau programs; Adult 

Education, Higher Education and Johnson O’Malley Program. 

ADULT EDUCATION—($78,971.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)

The objective of the adult education program is to provide the adult Tribal members with the opportunity to become employable, productive and self-sufficient by attaining a higher level of education. This objective can be obtained by collaborating 

with other Tribal programs such as Adult Vocational Training, Social Services, and 

Higher Education. To date, the funds provided assist with administrative costs, 

ABE/GED assistance, educational enhancement and cultural preservation, which include language, dance and history classes. Ideally, the cultural component of this 

program would thrive with its own budget. Due to the level of funding received we 

are only meeting 25 percent of the Tribal community needs at best. We would like 

to double our existing budget to better meet the needs of our ever-growing Tribal 

community and to enhance the services provided and enrich lives. 

HIGHER EDUCATION—($81,150.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)

The objective of the higher education program is to provide assistance to the Narragansett Indian students in the attainment of a college degree at the bachelors and 

graduate level (based on the unmet financial need of each student). The department 

received 46 requests for financial assistance during the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 

semesters. The unmet financial need for these terms was $196,00.00. To date, bachelor students have received minimal assistance and graduate students cannot be assisted because we lack the necessary funds. We estimate that this program is meeting roughly 25 percent of our students’ need. We would like to double the budget 

for this program to address the unmet need and to provide greater opportunities for 

our members to fulfill their higher education goals. 

JOHNSON O’MALLEY—($58,094.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)

The Johnson O’Malley program provides services to meet the unique and special 

needs of the Narragansett Indian Children, which are not met by schools and or 

other departments/agencies. The department presently operates a reservation based 

homework center and will be employing two (2) part-time tutors and one (1) cultural 

coordinator. These positions are being advertised based on responses from the 2002 

JOM Needs Assessment. To date, the funding received makes it impossible to meet 

the needs of our 768 eligible students and the goals and objectives of the contract. 

Our overall goal is to afford the children of the Tribe with opportunity to receive 

a quality education. We would like to double the budget for this program. 

DAYCARE CENTER—($48,868.00-DISCRETIONARY; $52,307-MANDATORY, TOTALING

$101,175.00)

The Narragansett Indian Tribe is anticipating a Summer 2003 opening for its 

Hand in Hand Day Care Center. The Center will be able to serve 31 Tribal Children 

and the activities and projects will be child directed and culturally based to enhance 

their learning environment. The Tribe continues to receive a Child Care Development Fund grant annually. To date, the funding received will barely support the 

operational costs. We will need more funding to qualify for State licensure. We plan 

to meet or exceed State requirements in order to be certain that our children are 

in a quality childcare center. We would like to double our budget for this important 

program. 
311

NARRAGANSETT INDIAN HEALTH CENTER—($403,603.00 INCREASE SOUGHT)

The Narragansett Indian Health Center (NIHC) has been in operation for six 

years. NIHC provides both direct onsite clinical services and Contract Health Services through local area providers. Our patient demographics remain the same as last 

year. Many members are unemployed, underemployed, or seasonally employed. As 

a result, most do not have the means for private insurance or are not eligible for 

state and federal insurance programs. This limits third-party billing revenue that 

could be used to supplement the budget. 

The center employs one full-time Physician, an internist placed here through an 

MOA with IHS. The full-time Nurse Practitioner position is still vacant, despite numerous attempts to hire a qualified candidate and we are still advertising to fill vacated nursing positions. Lack of funding has made it difficult to recruit for and staff 

many of these vacancies. The result is significant unmet need, particularly, in the 

areas of pediatric care, OB/GYN services. Further, insufficient staff and limited 

services add to tribal program expenses, since we must contract out for services that 

we could otherwise provide on-site with additional space. 

To address some of our unmet needs, the center needs a full-time Medical Social 

Worker, a part-time Clinical Psychologist, two additional full-time Outreach Workers, a part-time Podiatrist, Lab Technician, X-ray Technician, and a part-time Dental Hygienist. Further, we need funds to provide minimum optometry services, dental services, and other specialty clinic care on an in-house subcontracted basis. 

In fiscal year 2001, NIHC applied for the Small Ambulatory Program (SAP) Grant 

but we were not awarded the funding. Our application for the fiscal year 2002 SAP, 

also, was not awarded. It was our understanding that Congress intended the grant 

to fund small tribes; however, only large tribes have received funding, to date. 

Please note that while no eastern area tribes have been funded, we just received 

a letter from IHS officials asking if we intend to resubmit our application for the 

fiscal year 2003 SAP. We are responding affirmatively. 

The Narragansett Indian Tribe applied for the grant as a means to offer our community a ‘‘one stop shopping’’ concept for its health care needs-providing all services 

under one umbrella of a centralized health and human services facility. The existing 

building is too small to house the health programs currently offered and leaves no 

room for the future expansion of services that are necessary to meet tribal needs. 

An example of this occurred during a recent emergency when it became clear that 

stretchers could not fit around hallway corners. Further, there is no place for doing 

emergency Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) other than a conference room 

table or the floor. Exam rooms are too small to accommodate three people comfortably and staff office space is crammed. The current space limitations also do not 

allow for the incorporation of the Indian Child Welfare and Social Services Departments into our concept of a centralized health and human service facility. This results in unnecessary transportation hardships on many of our tribal members, as 

they have to travel to another town to access these services. Since there are currently no funds appropriated for the SAP grant in fiscal year 2004, we urgently request your support of our application for the fiscal year 2003 grant. 

In addition to the funding necessary to replace or expand our existing facility, we 

are requesting an increase in our IHS program funds of $403,603.00. Among other 

obstacles, Contract Support Costs shortfalls and insufficient funding continue to impact program operations. The Tribe will use additional funds to hire the necessary 

staff to provide a range of services that are severely lacking in our community. 

SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT—($385,000 INCREASE SOUGHT)

The Social Service Department operates a number of programs to provide services 

for eligible tribal members who reside in Washington County, Rhode Island, the designated service delivery area for the Narragansett Indian Tribe. Services provided 

include General Assistance, Child Welfare Assistance, Adult Care, Miscellaneous 

Assistance, Family/Community Services, Emergency Assistance-food, clothing, housing/shelter-Heating Assistance, and referrals to and assistance with alternate resource agencies, when necessary. The objective of the Social Services Department 

is to assist in the enhancement of everyday living for eligible tribal members and 

to help build and strengthen the dignity and self worth of the tribal members so 

they can obtain self-sufficiency. 

To date, the Social Services Department remains understaffed. Two full-time caseworkers and an administrative assistant staff the department. Under the oversight 

of the Director of Heath and Human Services, the staff is responsible to deliver all 

aspects of social welfare programs for more than 1300 tribal members residing in 

Washington County. Insufficient staff and funding result in much unmet need 

among our tribal members, since those factors restrict outreach efforts and make 
312

proactive activities essentially nonexistent. With out additional full-time caseworkers, the tribe can better address the tribal community’s unmet needs. The tribe 

seeks $150,000 additional recurring program dollars to hire staff and to expand program services. The Tribe needs an additional $235,000 to incorporate the Indian Child Welfare 

and Social Services Departments into the Narragansett Indian Health Center. This 

is in our efforts to provide ‘‘one-stop shopping’’, centralized health and human services facility for our tribal community. That will decrease the transportation burdens 

placed on both tribal members and tribal programs’ transportation services. 

Our efforts to increase funding for the Social Services Department, through grant 

writing and other means have been unsuccessful. It has come to our attention that 

funding for that BIA program is based on the number in the tribal population and 

the poverty index. Our current funding is based on population figures taken from 

the 1990 census. The Tribe needs Congress to authorize the use of the 2000 census 

figures as a means to determine funding levels, which will reflect more closely the 

appropriations needed to fulfill our social services obligations to our tribal community. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN COURT JUDGES

ASSOCIATION

On behalf of the National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA), 

I am pleased to submit this testimony on the fiscal year 2004 budget for the Interior 

Department’s funding for the Indian Tribal Justice Act and Tribal Courts (under the 

Tribal Priority Allocations). We request $73.4 million for Tribal Courts. 

The National American Indian Court Judges Association (NAICJA), 

www.naicja.com, was incorporated in 1969. NAICJA is the largest organization representing Tribal Judges and Tribal Courts in the United States. The mission of 

NAICJA is to strengthen and enhance all Tribal justice systems through improvement and development of Tribal Courts and Tribal Court Judges. 

INTERIOR DEPARTMENT FUNDING INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE ACT AND TRIBAL COURT

FUNDING

Full Funding for the Indian Tribal Justice Act; $58.4 million.—NAICJA respectfully requests that, for the first time, Congress appropriate full funding for Indian 

Tribal Justice Act: NAICJA recommends a funding level of $58.4 million. On December 21, 2000, the 106th Congress re-affirmed the Congressional commitment to provide this increased funding for tribal justice systems when it re-authorized the Indian Tribal Justice Act for seven more years of funding at a level of $58.4 million 

per year (see Public Law 106–559, section 202). NAICJA strongly supports FULL 

FUNDING of the Indian Tribal Justice Act as promised in 1993. NAICJA requests 

funding at a much higher rate since the number of tribal courts and their needs 

have substantially increased since the Act was entered into law in 1993—nearly ten 

years ago. 

Tribal Courts—an additional $15 million (under the Tribal Priority Allocations 

Account).—NAICJA strongly supports increased funding for Tribal Courts to a level 

of $15 million under the Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA). This minimal increase 

represents only a minimal first step towards meeting the vital needs of tribal justice 

systems. It is important to note that funding has steadily decreased since the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act. The needs (as recognized by Congress in the 

enactment of Public Law 103–176 and re-affirmed with the enactment of Public Law 

106–559), however, have only been compounded with the passage of time, the increase in tribal courts (170 to approximately 300), the increase of caseloads, population growth, and rise in crime rate in Indian country. 

Tribal Courts must deal with a wide range of difficult criminal and civil justice 

problems on a daily basis, including the following: 

—The crime rate, especially the violent crime rate, has increased substantially in 

Indian Country. (At the same time, it has been declining nationally.) Tribal 

court systems are grossly under-funded to deal with increasing criminal justice 

problems. 

—Number/complexity of tribal civil caseloads have also been rapidly expanding. 

Tribal Courts are expected to deal with the same complex civil cases as state 

and Federal Courts with grossly less funding. 

—Congress acknowledged the need for better funded Tribal Court systems when 

it enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Act in 1993. Congress specifically found 

that ‘‘tribal justice systems are an essential part of tribal governments and 

serve as important forums for ensuring public health and safety and the polit-
313

ical integrity of tribal governments’’ and ‘‘tribal justice systems are inadequately 

funded, and the lack of adequate funding impairs their operation.’’ —The Indian Tribal Justice Act promised more than $58 million per year in additional funding for Tribal Court systems starting in fiscal year 1994. Tribal 

Courts have yet to see ANY funding under this Act. 

—Since Congress enacted the Indian Tribal Justice Act, the needs of Tribal Court 

systems have continued to increase, but there has been no corresponding increase in funding for Tribal Court systems. In fact, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

funding for Tribal Courts has actually decreased substantially since the Indian 

Tribal justice Act was enacted in 1993. 

The vast majority of the approximately 300 Tribal court systems are located in 

rural communities. These Tribal justice systems face many of the same difficulties 

faced by other isolated communities, but these problems are greatly magnified by 

the many other complex problems that are unique to Indian country. In addition to 

the previously mentioned problems, Tribal justice systems; 

—lack sufficient jurisdiction over non-Indians 

—have complex jurisdictional relationships with Federal and state criminal justice 

systems 

—have inadequate staffing for law enforcement 

—tend to be a great distance from the few existing resources outside of the Tribe 

—face a lack of detention facilities 

—have a limitation of sentencing or disposition alternatives 

—lack of access to advanced technology 

—lack substance abuse testing and treatment options 

In most Tribal justice systems, 80–90 percent of the cases are criminal in nature 

and 90 percent of these cases involve the difficult problems of alcohol and/or substance abuse. 

IMPORTANCE OF TRIBAL COURTS

Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate institutions for maintaining order in Tribal communities.

‘‘Tribal courts constitute the frontline tribal institutions that most often confront 

issues of self-determination and sovereignty, while at the same time they are 

charged with providing reliable and equitable adjudication in the many and increasingly diverse matters that come before them. In addition, they constitute a key tribal entity for advancing and protecting the rights of self-government.... Tribal 

courts are of growing significance in Indian Country.’’ (Frank Pommersheim, Braid 

of Feathers: American Indian Law and Contemporary Tribal Law 57 (1995)).

Tribal Courts must deal with the very same issues state and Federal courts confront in the criminal context, including, child sexual abuse, alcohol and substance 

abuse, gang violence and violence against women. Tribal Courts, however, must address these complex issues with far fewer financial resources than their Federal and 

state counterparts. Judicial training that addresses the existing problems in Indian 

Country, while also being culturally sensitive, is essential for Tribal Courts to be 

effective in deterring and solving crime in Indian communities. 

INADEQUATE FUNDING OF TRIBAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS

There is no question that Tribal justice systems are, and historically have been, 

under-funded. The 1991 United States Civil Rights Commission found that ‘‘the failure of the United States Government to provide proper funding for the operation 

of tribal judicial systems... has continued for more than 20 years.’’ The Indian 

Civil Rights Act: A Report of the United States Civil Rights Commission, June 1991, 

p. 71. The Commission also noted that ‘‘[f]unding for tribal judicial systems may be 

further hampered in some instances by the pressures of competing priorities within 

a tribe.’’ Moreover, they opined that ‘‘If the United States Government is to live up 

to its trust obligations, it must assist tribal governments in their development . . .’’ 

More than ten years ago, the Commission ‘‘strongly support[ed] the pending and 

proposed congressional initiatives to authorize funding of tribal courts in an amount 

equal to that of an equivalent State court’’ and was ‘‘hopeful that this increased 

funding [would] allow for much needed increases in salaries for judges, the retention 

of law clerks for tribal judges, the funding of public defenders/defense counsel, and 

increased access to legal authorities.’’

With the passage of the Indian Tribal Justice Act, 25 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (the 

‘‘Act’’), Congress found that ‘‘[T]ribal justice systems are an essential part of tribal 

governments and serve as important forums for ensuring public health, safety and 

the political integrity of tribal governments.’’ 25 U.S.C. § 3601(5). Congress found 
314

that ‘‘tribal justice systems are inadequately funded, and the lack of adequate funding impairs their operation.’’ 25 U.S.C. § 3601(8). In order to remedy this lack of 

funding, the Act authorized appropriation of base funding support for tribal justice 

systems in the amount of $50 million for each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2000. 

25 U.S.C. § 3621(b). An additional $500,000 for each of the same fiscal years was 

authorized to be appropriated for the administration of Tribal Judicial Conferences 

for the ‘‘development, enhancement and continuing operation of tribal justice 

systems . . .’’ 25 U.S.C. § 3614. 

Nine years after the Act was enacted into law, and even after reauthorization, no 

funding has been appropriated. Only minimal funds, at best, have been requested. 

Yet, even these minimal requests were deleted prior to passage. Even more appalling is the fact that BIA funding for Tribal Courts has actually substantially decreased following the enactment of the Indian Tribal Justice Act in 1993. 

CONCLUSION

Tribal justice systems are the primary and most appropriate institutions for maintaining order in tribal communities. They are key to tribal economic development 

and self-sufficiency. Any serious attempt to fulfill the federal government’s trust responsibility to Indian Nations must include increased funding and enhancement of 

Tribal justice systems. We respectfully request that Congress consider the funding 

increases. 

We welcome the opportunity to comment on the Interior Department’s fiscal year 

2004 Budget Request for the Indian Tribal Justice Act and Tribal Courts (under the 

Tribal Priority Allocations). 

Please contact Judge Eugene White-Fish, President, NAICJA at (715) 478–7255, 

or NAICJA Executive Director Chuck Robertson, at (605) 342–4804 or 

naicja@rushmore.com with questions or comments. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NAVAJO NATION

The Navajo Nation welcomes this opportunity to provide recommendations on the 

proposed federal fiscal year 2004 budget for the Interior, including the Indian 

Health Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs requested budgets. The Navajo Nation requests that: 

The Appropriation Subcommittee not appropriate funding for the Department of 

the Interior’s proposed BIA Reorganization.—The Navajo Nation is opposed to the 

Interior’s proposal due to lack of tribal consultation. The Interior has yet to submit 

a formal proposal to Congress, the Navajo Nation or Indian tribes to consult and 

comment on. 

The Appropriation Subcommittee not appropriate funding for the Proposed BIA 

‘‘Privatization’’ School Initiative.—In the President’s budget, increased funds were 

requested to make BIA schools attractive for private educational companies, yet the 

Navajo Nation and other tribes have repeatedly asked the BIA to increase funds for 

its BIA schools but have been constantly denied. The BIA has yet to have consultation to fully discuss tribal education plans. 

The Navajo Nation requests fiscal year 2004 appropriations in the amount of: 

Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP).—$30,000,000. The Navajo Nation requests full funding for NIIP. NIIP construction is a legal obligation of the federal 

government based on statute. 

Navajo Southwest Judicial Complex.—$20,000,000. Current court facilities built 

in the 1950’s are dilapidated. This funding would enhance self-determination and 

encourage economic self-sufficiency. 

Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT).—$1,500,000. CIT is a critically important educational institution that reduces unemployment and attracts businesses to 

the Navajo Nation. 

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI).—$5,730,000. SIPI is one of two 

fully accredited universities in the Bureau’s education system. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

Contract Support Cost Grants.—$20,000,000. Contract support costs are necessary 

to fund the Navajo Nation’s self-administered healthcare to the Nation’s approximately 250,000 citizens. 

Facilities.—The Navajo Nation supports the President’s request for $4,000,000 for 

Fort Defiance Hospital Staff Quarters; $21,573,000 for the Pinon Health Center; and 

$30,000,000 for the Red Mesa Health Center. 
315

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

BIA Roads Maintenance.—$32,100,000. Tribes are in need of solid infrastructure 

and the funds to maintain existing roads and new road construction. 

Law Enforcement.—$172,663,760. The Navajo ratio of 0.3 police officers per 1,000 

population is dangerously below the necessary minimum rural-setting ratio of 3 officers per 1,000 population. 

Indian Police Academy.—$2,545,530. The Indian Police Academy provides basic 

and advanced law enforcement training for Bureau law enforcement and detention 

officers. 

Justice Systems.—$10,000,000. Congress passed the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 

1993, but has never provided appropriations for adequate based funding for tribal 

courts. 

Tribal Courts.—$18,292,720. Tribal courts have long been under funded and 

under developed. The Navajo Nation is focusing on strengthening its courts as a 

means for creating safe communities and building infrastructure for economic development. 

Tribal Education Department (TEDs).—$1,000,000. Congress authorized appropriations for the development of TEDs in Public Law 95–561, but has never appropriated this initiative. 

School Construction.—$131,400,000. The Navajo Nation’s request supports a serious commitment to building Indian schools, of which the Navajo Nation has a majority of BIA schools slated for replacement. 

Facilities Improvement and Repair (FI&R).—$165,000,000. The Navajo Nation 

supports funding that will eliminate this backlog of repairs at these schools. 

Education Facilities Operations.—$74,900,000. The Navajo Nation does not support the President’s request of $57,687,000. If the Administration requested full 

funding, then schools would not have to cover operations from funds appropriated 

for instruction. 

Minor Improvement and Repair (MI&R).—$17,747,491, of which the Navajo Nation requests $3,000,000 for the Navajo Area. The Navajo Nation has the majority 

of BIA education facilities to maintain. 

Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP).—$361,000,000. This amount will at 

least cover the required pay cost adjustments and prevent actual declines in the instructional program. However, since education is a priority of the President and the 

Congress, it is disappointing that there is not a significant increase in this line item. 

ISEP-Pro Ajustments.—$6,072,250. This amount would allow tribes to plan and 

assume greater control of their educational programs. 

Administrative Cost Grants (ACG).—$61,400,000. The Navajo Nation’s request is 

consistent with the BIA’s stated initiative to encourage tribes to contract/grant the 

remaining BIA schools. 

Student Transportation.—$55,000,000. Navajo Nation’s request would help to fully 

implement President Bush’s education policies, as funds for Indian student transportation is a must. 

Family and Child Education Expansion (FACE)—$15,800,000. The Navajo Nation 

supports the FACE program as it has done much to facilitate learning on the Navajo Nation. 

New Schools and Program Expansion.—The Navajo Nation requests that the Appropriations Committee lift the 1992 Appropriation Act moratorium on BIA program 

expansion and new BIA schools so that the Navajo Nation may better serve its students. 

Johnson O’Malley Program (JOM).—$18,310,910. The JOM Program provides 

funds to supplement the regular school program. JOM programs are used for tutoring, academic support, cultural activities, summer education programs and after 

school activities. Navajo Nation provides supplemental funding to provide special 

services to meet the unique and specialized needs of over 52,000 Native American 

students through 36 subcontracts in public schools on or near the Navajo reservation in the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. 

Scholarship Funding.—$30,000,000, of which, $1,223,397 should be directly allocated to the BIA Navajo Area. The Navajo Nation supports President Bush’s committed to education, and asks for a strong commitment to assist Indian.students in 

Higher Education. 

Adult Education Scholarships.—$3,210,000. While the Administration may emphasize elementary and secondary education, the Navajo Nation still believes in including all of its citizens to gain education opportunities. 

Special Higher Education Scholarships.—$1,605,000. There must be an emphasis 

on adults achieving higher education. BIA Scholarship provides supplemental financial assistance to Indians for graduate level study. 
316

Tribally Controlled Community Colleges (TCCCs).—$44,940,000 of which, 

$40,029,000 would be for Operating Grants. TCCCs encourage tribal members to attend school, obtain new skills and a better quality of life. 

Environmental Projects/Assessments/Inspections/Abatement.—$12,466,570. Many 

BIA schools have asbestos in their facilities and a reduction in this area does not 

show commitment to have healthy environments for children. Navajo has schools 

listed on the BIA priority list. 

Social Services under Tribal Priority Allocations.—$33,299,390. 

Indian Child Welfare Act.—$12,460,150. Protecting Navajo children is a duty for 

creating healthy families and strong communities. Reducing these funds does neither. 

Housing Improvement Program (HIP).—$35,310,000. The Navajo Nation strongly 

encourages full funding of HIP to maintain safe living environments for Indian people living in harsh and economic deprived environments. 

Public Safety Minor Improvement and Repair (MI&R).—$857,070. The Navajo 

Area has many facilities that need immediate repair to keep its Public Safety facilities safe. The Navajo Area receives the lowest of the BIA regions and is requested 

at only $50,000. 

Bennett Freeze Area Rehabilitation.—$20,000,000. As a result of the Bennett 

Freeze, construction and development in the western portion of the Navajo Nation 

has been impossible for nearly 40 years. During these 40 years, Navajo families living in the Bennett Freeze area could not take advantage of federal, state or tribal 

programs. The area is in severe need of these development funds. 

Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation.—$30,000,000. ONHIR received $15 million 

in fiscal year 2001 and again in fiscal year 2002. Many Navajos continue to wait 

to receive housing and other promised benefits under the Navajo-Hopi Settlement 

Act. In order to accelerate the provision of such benefits, the Navajo Nation requests 

that this federal agency’s budget be doubled to $30 million. 

Relocation Act Study.—$1,000,000. The relocation. law has resulted in the dislocation of 10,000 Navajos, dramatically impacted local Navajo and non-Indian communities, and cost the federal government approximately $400 million. The time has 

come for a comprehensive study of the effects of the relocation law, with a focus on 

long-term impacts that may have to be mitigated over the next 20 years. 

HPL Community Center.—$1,000,000. Due to construction and development 

freezes, Navajo families who reside on the Hopi Partitioned Lands, have never had 

any facilities developed to support their community. This funding would facilitate 

badly needed community services. 

Water Management, Planning, and Pre-Development—$8,615,640. To assist the 

Navajo Nation in effectively managing its water, especially during these times of 

drought in order to stabilize water usage in the west. 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (BOR)—BUREAU OF RECLAMATION EFFICIENCY INCENTIVES

PROGRAM

Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project.—$500,000. This amount would enable the 

BOR to complete the planning report and the environmental impact statement to 

continue this Project. The Project will create the infrastructure necessary to provide 

critically needed water to tribal and non-tribal communities in New Mexico. 

Ganado Water Conservation and Management Project.—$350,000. This amount 

will allow irrigators to have access to water from the Ganado Reservoir. 

Navajo Nation Drought Relief Within New Mexico—$1,340,000. This would allow 

BOR Emergency Drought Relief Act funds for Spencer Valley (Manuelito Chapter) 

for a conveyance line ($90,000); at Torreon Chapter for a new water source 

($450,000); and at Baca/Haystack Chapter for water source and storage ($800,000). 

Navajo Nation Drought Relief Within Arizona.—$2,000,000. BOR Emergency 

Drought Relief Act funds for Teec Nos Pos Chapter for a new water source 

($470,000); Fort Defiance Chapter for a replacement well and storage ($250,000); 

Tuba City Chapter for water source and storage ($380,000); and Cameron-Grey 

Mountain for water source and storage ($900,000). 

Navajo Mountain Public Water System.—$4,000,000. The Navajo Mountain Public 

Water System is inadequate to provide for the needs of the community and its 

schools as it depends on springs that are unreliable during dry periods. Last year 

the Navajo Nation had to resort to hauling water more than 40 miles to provide 

drinking water for the community and resulted in the closing of the schools during 

the summer months. The proposed project would cost approximately $6 million. Programmatic funding committed through the U.S. EPA and BIA totals $2 million. 
317

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

Dine Power Authority (DPA).—$1,500,000. This would allow DPA to complete archaeological, biological and cultural studies, and related mitigation measures, within the right of way corridor on Navajo lands for the Navajo Transmission Project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEZ PERCE TRIBE

The Nez Perce Tribe requests the following funding amounts for fiscal year 2004, 

which are specific to the Nez Perce Tribe: 

—$100,000 through the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Program to support its fisheries efforts relating 

to consultation on hydrosystem operations, Endangered Species restoration, 

harvest monitoring, conservation enforcement, and program administration. 

—$600,000 (request includes $450,000 as appropriated in fiscal year 2003, for continuing efforts plus $150,000 increase for expanded needs as part of an overall 

fiscal year 2004 program request of $1.16 million appropriation request) 

through the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Threatened and Endangered Species Program for continued operation of the 

Nez Perce Tribes gray wolf recovery, monitoring, research and outreach programs in Idaho. This $600,000 request is part of a larger appropriation package 

totaling $1.16 million, prepared by the Nez Perce Tribe after initial discussions 

with the State of Idaho Office of Species Conservation, in order to create a wolf 

recovery program in the state of Idaho, that anticipates probable delisting of 

wolves from the Endangered Species list, by adequately funding the coordinated 

and shared responsibilities of the Nez Perce Tribe, State of Idaho, and Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

The Tribe urges support for the full and adequate funding of tribal programs 

through the Department of Interior fiscal year 2004 budget, with the specific requests discussed below. 

NEZ PERCE TRIBE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FUNDING: BIA, 

$100,000

The Nez Perce Tribe requests $100,000 be added to its Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Public Law 93–638 contract for enhanced capabilities in its fish recovery effort. 

The Nez Perce Tribe has one of the largest and most successful tribal fisheries 

management programs in the United States. We take our challenge of restoring the 

fisheries resources in Idaho, northeast Oregon, and southeast Washington very seriously. The Tribe has brought back coho salmon from extinction, is utilizing hatchery 

supplementation to return ESA listed spring, summer, and fall Chinook and restore 

these populations to harvestable levels, and is the single-most active habitat restoration entity in the Snake River Basin. We employ 150 to 200 people, most of 

which are tribal members, and maintain four offices in Oregon and Idaho. Principle 

program areas include Administration, Research, Habitat, Conservation Enforcement, Resident Fish, Harvest, and Production. The Tribe’s Fisheries Management 

program is focused on restoring and maintaining an abundance of fish populations 

within the Tribe’s treaty lands in order to provide for environmental and cultural 

health and meet recreational, commercial and subsistence fishing needs. 

The Nez Perce Tribe’s Fisheries Management Program is built upon the extremely 

strong treaty rights retained by the Tribe. Among other things, the treaties guarantee the right of the Tribe to harvest fish at virtually every single river and stream 

flowing through the lands ceded to the United States and at all usual and accustomed areas. The Tribe’s ceded lands sit astride the largest and best salmon habitats remaining in the northwest—the Snake River Basin. This is the ‘‘breadbasket’’ 

of the Columbia, although now, most salmon runs returning here are listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Rather than 

continuing with this status quo, and having the actualization of treaty rights depend upon what the federal and state fisheries managers could provide, the Tribe 

initiated its own program. 

The Fisheries Program relies on a host of funding sources, including the Lower 

Snake River Compensation Program, Bonneville Power Administration’s Fish and 

Wildlife Mitigation Program, and the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund initiative. In addition, the Tribe has sought opportunities to utilize its contracts as 

matching funds with various federal and private partners. However, these funding 

sources are very project specific and short-lived. The addition of appropriated dollars 

through the BIA is critical to funding overall management activities required for 

Program Administration, Harvest Monitoring and Conservation Enforcement. These 
318

programs are central to the Tribe’s fisheries management responsibilities as established in the treaties and further delineated in litigation regarding implementation 

of hunting and fishing treaty rights. 

An increase in funding through the BIA is required to deal with these core management actions. For several years the salmon runs have returned in larger numbers and to many more streams than have occurred in the past. These larger returns are due to a number of factors, but importantly have responded to the Tribe’s 

supplementation efforts using hatchery fish. As a result of the larger returns, tribal 

commercial and subsistence harvest activities and harvest opportunities for sportsmen are occurring over a much broader area of the ceded lands and the usual and 

accustomed fishing areas, and for longer periods of time. Consequently, costs associated with the central administration, enforcement, and harvest monitoring actions 

are similarly increasing. With increasing success come increasing responsibilities. 

Additionally, Tribes have never had access to federal aid in fisheries work through 

the Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and Wallop-Breaux Acts. These funds are 

derived from a federal tax paid on outdoor and sporting equipment. States are provided these funds to supplement their fish and wildlife programs for just such needs 

as identified in the Tribe’s appropriation request. While tribal members pay taxes 

on the sale of certain sporting goods items, tribal governments do not receive any 

of the federal tax revenue. 

The requested fiscal year 2004 funding would support two staff positions in Administration, six in Harvest Monitoring and ten in Conservation Enforcement. Although the jobs are located in Idaho, work conducted by the positions occurs primarily in Idaho, but also in Washington and Oregon. 

The Nez Perce Tribe urges Congress to appropriate $100,000 through the United 

States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Program to support the fisheries efforts of the Nez Perce Tribe. 

NEZ PERCE TRIBE’S CENTRAL IDAHO GRAY WOLF RECOVERY PROGRAM FUNDING: USFWS, 

$600,000

The Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe) requests that Congress direct the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to allocate $600,000 for wolf recovery efforts by the Tribe, for 

tasks identified in a cooperative agreement between the Tribe and Service. The 

Tribe’s fiscal year 2003 appropriation for wolf recovery was $450,000. The Tribe is 

requesting an additional $150,000 above the fiscal year 2003 appropriated level of 

$450,000 for a total fiscal year 2004 program budget of $600,000. The Tribe anticipates using the additional funds to expand efforts of previous years to retain more 

staff; increase on-the-ground presence especially in areas of new or recent wolf activity; update the monitoring program to enable the Tribe to develop a methodology 

to continue to produce accurate estimates of population size using less intensive 

monitoring techniques; expand field operations especially focusing on documenting 

and radio collaring new packs and maintaining radio-collars in existing packs; acquire equipment; increase continuing reporting and information dissemination activities; hold informational public meetings in affected communities; document new 

packs; establish a system of special effort to notify landowners, grazing permittees, 

agencies, and others who have particular needs for the information gathered; and 

develop and deliver all maps and reports due per the existing cooperative agreement 

with the Service. 

The Nez Perce Tribe and the USDA APHIS Wildlife Service staff have been the 

primary entities responsible for the day-to-day recovery and management of wolves 

in Idaho. The Tribe has provided such services as monitoring wolves; providing information to agencies, organizations and the public; working with affected and interested parties to address concerns supporting the implementation of directed wolf research; assisting with resolution of wolf-livestock conflicts; and assisting Service’s 

Law Enforcement personnel when requested. Yet, more effort is needed. The Idaho 

wolf population is growing in numbers and expanding into new geographic areas. 

Additional funding is needed to continue providing Recovery Program services to 

newly affected communities with the geographic expansion of the wolf population. 

The Tribe and the State of Idaho as represented by the Idaho Office of Species 

Conservation (OSC) submitted a joint appropriation request for fiscal year 2003 including $600,000 for the Tribe, $460,000 for OSC and $100,000 for the Service. The 

Tribe anticipated filing a similar joint federal appropriation request with the OSC 

for fiscal year 2004, but opted not to do so when the OSC asked the Tribe to limit 

its fiscal year 2004 request to only $400,000 this year, which is $50,000 less than 

the Tribe received in fiscal year 2003 and $200,00 less than the Tribe and OSC requested for the Tribe in fiscal year 2003. The OSC is requesting an increase of nearly $200,000 over fiscal year 2003 appropriated levels, which would equal the 
319

$460,000 amount previously requested by OSC in fiscal year 2003. The Tribe supports the State of Idaho in its fiscal year 2004 request for increased federal appropriations for planned wolf management efforts as long as it is not at the expense 

of the Tribe’s request for $600,000. To that end the Tribe has included a request 

for $460,000 for the OSC in the Tribe’s fiscal year 2004 appropriation request package of $1.16 million. As respective fiscal year 2004 workloads between the Tribe and 

OSC have not changed considerably from fiscal year 2003, as outlined in the fiscal 

year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 appropriations requests, the Tribe feels strongly justified in requesting funding needs similar to those requested in fiscal year 2003, as 

does OSC. 

The Nez Perce Tribe continues to hold legal and contracted obligations to recover 

and manage wolves in Idaho pursuant to a cooperative agreement with the Service 

and a Service approved Tribal wolf management plan. Until such time as the tribal 

contractual obligations are changed through consensual efforts between the Tribe, 

OSC and Service, the Tribe needs full funding to carry out its contractual obligations. The OSC and the Tribe have agreed to continue with negotiations to develop 

and adopt an MOA outlining respective roles and responsibilities for coordinated 

wolf management after wolf management shifts from the Federal Government to the 

State and Tribe. We hope to conclude those discussions before the final appropriations are decided late this summer. The Tribe believes this MOA and subsequent 

additionally required MOA’s coordinated between the OSC and the Tribe and the 

Service are the appropriate vehicles for reapportioning respective roles and responsibilities, legal contractual obligations and funding among the parties. Funding levels should be closely tied to and follow agreed to workloads identified in the MOA 

between the Tribe and Service and the MOA’s between the Service and Tribe and 

OSC and Tribe. The Tribe feels strongly that reapportioning funding levels prior to 

reallocation of respective roles and responsibilities through the MOA’s is premature, 

as the Tribe continues to hold full legal obligations for the entire Recovery Program 

as outlined in our current cooperative agreement with the Service. 

The Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress support wolf recovery in Idaho by 

fully funding the Tribe’s total wolf recovery appropriation request package which 

seeks appropriations for the Nez Perce Tribe, the Idaho State Office of Species Conservation, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Snake River Basin Office. At a minimum, however, the Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress appropriate $600,000 

specifically to the Nez Perce Tribe which is necessary for the Tribe to adequately 

monitor the expanding wolf population in Idaho and provide accountability to local 

affected rural communities and Idaho citizens. 

Thank you for your continued support of the Nez Perce Tribe’s fish and wolf recovery efforts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION

On behalf of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission member tribes, I want 

to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present this written testimony on 

our fiscal year 2004 fisheries and habitat management needs. Funds for these programs should be directed to the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Account within the Bureau 

of Indian. 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

The NWIFC generally supports the enacted fiscal year 2003 appropriation levels. 

We request funding and direction which will achieve the following for fiscal year 

2004: 

—Restore $320,000 to the Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights account 

—Restore $550,000 for Western Washington tribal shellfish management and enforcement 

—$6.3 million to implement tribal treaty rights in tribal shellfish programs 

—$22 million for federal contribution of Tribal/Growers shellfish settlement 

—Restore $3.0 million Forest Development, Woodland Management, Northwest 

Forest Plan, Jobs in the Woods and Wild Stock Restoration Initiative 

—Restore $3.1 million for the Timber-Fish-Wildlife Forest and Fish Report 

—$1.0 million Increase for Timber-Fish-Wildlife ESA Obligations under new state 

and private forest practices rules and regulations 

—Increase Hatchery Cyclical Maintenance/Rehabilitation funding to $2.5 million 

with language 

—Support existing funding levels within the BIA for Trust Responsibility, TPA, 

and Self Governance for Fisheries Management/U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon at 

fiscal year 2003 levels 
320

—Include Committee Language directing the BIA to include Shellfish, Forest and 

Fish Report and Unresolved Hunting and Fishing in the fiscal year 2005 Budget 

—Fully fund CSC at levels necessary for existing and emerging programs 

TRIBAL AND NWIFC BASE PROGRAMS NEED CONTINUED SUPPORT

Tribes have made great strides in institutionalizing management consistent with 

tribal values, treaty rights and federal court decisions. Tribes have developed great 

professional capabilities and policy respect, and are efficient and effective, but find 

ourselves far short of where we would like to be in our capabilities. And, while we 

have efficiently organized our tasks and assigned responsibilities between our tribal 

communities to extend our collective efforts, the management obligations are many. 

New and highly difficult complexities abound, many are precipitated by the demands of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). Treaty rights to harvest shellfish are thwarted due to pollution in marine waters. To 

meet this challenge, we will need all of our existing funding and additional new resources. Over the past decade, tribes have been able to secure new monies for additional 

responsibilities. However, over the same time, tribes have seen other monies they 

once received for other duties diminish, either through inflation or through the 

elimination of program and support funding. And in this process, Indian natural resource management capacity has been unfairly affected. Therefore, we strongly urge 

the Subcommittee to guard against any further diminishment of the tribal program 

funding base, and do all it can to strengthen and enhance the Bureau’s Trust, Tribal 

Priority Allocation and Self-Governance Program funding. We ask that the Subcommittee ensure that the Western Washington-Boldt Implementation and the Pacific Salmon Treaty base budgets be fully funded as was included in last year’s appropriation. We note with concern the reduction of $320,000 from the Unresolved 

Hunting and Fishing Rights line item, and ask that it be restored. Tribes are using 

these monies to develop in-common and co-management databases, population assessments and other activities with the state of Washington. 

SHELLFISH MANAGEMENT INITIATIVE

For centuries, members of Puget Sound and Coastal Treaty Tribes have harvested 

shellfish for their commercial, ceremonial and subsistence needs. Hard shell and 

razor clams and oysters were collected from shoreline areas. Other shellfish species, 

such as crab and shrimp, were also gathered for subsistence and commercial uses. 

Shellfish harvesting was as important to tribal traditional life and commerce, as 

was fishing for salmon and steelhead. 

Tribes signed treaties with the United States in the mid-1850s, that included 

guaranteed tribal rights to gather shellfish. However, over the course of the past 

century and a half, conflicts arose, and the tribal right to harvest these resources 

was diminished. As a result, tribes were forced to seek a reaffirmation of their 

rights through the federal courts system. In 1999, the Supreme Court denied cert. 

and let stand the favorable decision of the 9th Circuit Court. Tribes have steadily 

moved forward during this time in implementing their treaty rights to harvest their 

share of the resource. However, Tribes need monies to implement this right, in 

much the same way as they did after the original U.S. v. Washington case was decided. Several dozen regional shellfish management plans have been successfully negotiated with tribal and state agencies, and tribes have redirected efforts to conduct 

the minimum management needed for their fisheries. Agreements and processes to 

access private tidelands have also been proceeding peacefully. Without new resources this success will be short-lived. 

During the course of the court case, tribal and state attorneys were able to negotiate a consent decree regarding shellfish sanitation. This agreement establishes 

shellfish sanitation programs designed to protect the public health. The implementation of the decree has revealed that the presence of biotoxins in shellfish is dangerously unacceptable, and threatens the viability of both the state and tribal fisheries. Additional research and monitoring of this biotoxin is necessary to prevent illness and death that may result from consuming toxic shellfish. The significant value 

of deep-water shellfish fisheries has increased illegal harvesting and enforcement is 

inadequate. Tribes and state enforcement agencies are addressing problems by coordinating patrols, but additional monitoring of harvest is needed. 

It is clear that more needs to be done to adequately address resource concerns 

for the benefit of all fisheries, Indian and non-Indian alike. The Western Washington tribes request the Subcommittee to restore last years funding of $550,000, 

and add an additional $6.3 million to tribal fishery management contracts as part 

of the permanent base. 
321

We are also asking the Committee for its help in funding a final settlement decree 

between treaty tribes and a number of private shellfish growers. This settlement 

will allow tribes to shift their treaty reserved rights from harvesting of grower 

owned land-to-land acquired under the terms of this settlement. The entire cost of 

this settlement will be $33 million, with the cost split two-thirds–one-third between 

the federal and state governments. 

WILDSTOCK RESTORATION INITIATIVE, WATERSHED RESTORATION, NORTHWEST FOREST

PLAN, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT IMPLEMENTATION

In 1999, a number of species of Pacific Salmon were listed by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service as threatened under the terms of the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). Last year, the Bull Trout was listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. This ESA listing process is triggering a cascading chain of events, 

and will culminate in significant changes to harvest, hatchery and habitat practices 

for the region and its inhabitants. 

Tribes are affected by this federal process. As fisherman, the listing raises serious 

questions about the status of the stocks and poses a threat to the individual’s opportunity to continue to harvest this salmon, a treaty-secured resource. As governments, the ESA process places inordinate demands upon the tribes as co-managers 

of the resource. Biological Reviews, Listing Decisions, Assessments, Opinions, Consultation, and Recovery Planning are just a few of the processes tribes will now be 

forced to participate in just to ensure their treaty protected fisheries. The tribes harvest opportunity and management are being placed in severe jeopardy by these actions without additional funds to manage through the risks imposed by this federal 

mandate. 

We are requesting that the Subcommittee continue to provide $400,000 for the Wild Stock Restoration Initiative from the $3.0 million Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Forest Development, Woodland Management and the Northwest Forest Plan ‘‘Jobs 

in the Woods’’ Initiative line item. The WSRI is essential to developing a habitat 

inventory base from which restoration efforts can begin. The remaining $2.6 million 

from this initiative will allow tribes throughout the Pacific Northwest to continue 

to conduct watershed analysis and watershed restoration within their Usual and Accustomed Areas. This approach is identical to last year’s request, which the Subcommittee supported. 

TIMBER-FISH-WILDLIFE/FOREST AND FISH REPORT

We are supporting the restoration of Funding to tribes for the Timber-Fish-Wildlife/Forest and Fish Report that cooperatively and collaboratively allows tribes to actively participate in state forest practice rules and regulations that have an affect 

on listed salmon populations. Tribes, as a result of their co-management status, are 

deeply involved in this management forum. The negotiations leading up to the development of the TFW Forest and Fish Report were exceedingly contentious. However, most agreed that the only way to actually resolve these issues is for a strong 

monitoring and adaptive monitoring process be put in place, which will require additional funding. 

Tribes are using the funds provided last year by the Committee in a very organized fashion. Tribes have a strong central and regional coordination component and 

are focusing implementation efforts at their local watersheds. The strategy calls for 

two tracks. One is aimed at supporting the development of the Habitat Conservation 

Plan (HCP) development process at TFW. A second track supports tribal participation in TFW in a continuing effort to shape and steer forest management practices 

toward greater fish protection. For fiscal year 2004, we are again requesting $3.1 million be restored plus an additional $1.0 million to further develop tribal participation in the TFW Forest and 

Fish effort. For each of our requests to restore funding, we ask the Committee to 

include language directing the Bureau of Indian Affairs to include these funding 

amounts in their fiscal year 2005 budget request. 

HATCHERY CYCLICAL MAINTENANCE/REHABILITATION

Tribes operate extensive salmon and steelhead hatchery facilities that produce 

fish for tribal and non-tribal use. These facilities are located throughout the western 

Washington U.S. v. Washington Case Area. Many of these facilities were built with 

federal funding and were intended to partially fulfill federal trust responsibilities 

to off-set loss of fishing opportunities and fish habitat due to non-Indian action and 

developments. 

Hatchery operations are reviewed through the Hatchery Reform Project Initiative 

funded through the Fish and Wildlife Service. Not unexpectedly, one of the out-
322

comes from this rigorous scientific review process is to make physical changes to facilities that bring them in line with the scientific review recommendations. 

Tribes will need about $2.5 million to do necessary work to ensure that their facilities are ESA certified. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has a small line item that 

could be amended to include this kind of work. Such funding would complement 

state of Washington funding through their capital construction budget, and ensure 

that tribal facilities are improved at the same pace as state owned and operated 

hatcheries. Direction would need to be given to the Bureau to ensure that tribal facilities in western Washington are recipients to these monies. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT FUNDING IS ESSENTIAL TO TRIBAL PROGRAMS

We continue to have concerns that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has failed to fully 

request Contract Support Funds for tribal programs. We are also concerned that 

Congress has not fully appropriated the necessary funds. An artificial cap upon the 

funding pool for indirect cost reimbursements places a huge burden on tribal fisheries programs. We have been, and will be forced to continue to reduce our programs to cover these costs as mandated by law. Such a burden cannot be borne by 

tribal programs again this year or into the future without onerous results. 

CONCLUSION

We appreciate the Subcommittee’s continued support for the tribes and the 

NWIFC as we implement co-management responsibilities. It takes funding resources 

to make our management system work, but the returns to our efforts are many. The 

challenges are great, and we must continue our effort with renewed vigor. We thank 

you for your attention to our needs. We have provided the subcommittee staff with 

additional supporting documentation for our requests. We are available to meet with 

you and your staff at your leisure. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

Mr. Chairman, my name is Bill Sterud, Puyallup Tribal Chairman. We thank the 

Committee for past support of many tribal issues and in your interest today. We 

share our concerns and request assistance in reaching objectives of significance to 

the Congress, the Tribe, and to 32,000∂ Indians (constituents) in our Urban Service 

Area. 

U.S. Department of Interior—Bureau of Indian Affairs.—The Puyallup Tribe has 

analyzed the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget and submit the following detailed 

written testimony to the House Interior Subcommittee on the proposed funding bill 

for the Dept. of Interior and Related Agencies. In the fiscal year 2003 budget process, the Puyallup Tribe supported actions of Congress to restore the base level funding for various programs including the Timber-Fish-Wildlife program in the amount 

of $3.1 million along with $550,000 for Shellfish management. We look forward to 

working with the 108th Congress to insure that funding levels for programs necessary for the Puyallup Tribe to carry-out our sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for the benefit of Puyallup tribal members and the 

members from approximately 435 federally recognized Tribes who utilize our services are included in the fiscal year 2004 budget. 

The following provides a brief review of the Puyallup Tribe’s priorities and special 

appropriation requests for fiscal year 2004; 

Chief Leshci School—Auditorium Completion & Athletic Facilities Development.—

The Puyallup Tribal education support began in 1972 as the ‘‘Hawthorne School’’, 

a teen drop-in prevention program established in cooperation with Tacoma Schools 

on the site of the present Tacoma Dome. An Elementary School was constructed on 

the main tribal campus in 1978 through funding from the Economic Development 

Administration. The Elementary School was relocated to the Tribal Headquarters 

and the K–12 offerings became the new Chief Leschi School, which was designated 

as a tribal school through a ‘‘638 contract’’ with the BIA. A combination of school 

population and weakness in the school buildings structural integrity caused the 

school to relocate educational services to various sites. This initiated a request to 

the BIA for a new school facility. 

This request was realized in 1996 with the completion of the new Chief Leshci 

School pre-K through 12. As of February 2003, enrollment of Native American children is 702. This enrollment figure represents native children from 65 federally recognized tribes through-out the country. As with many construction projects, limited 

funding and cost increases had a significant impact on the final design of Chief 

Leschi Schools. This is evident in the lack of an Auditorium and Athletic Facilities. 
323

Although construction on the Auditorium was started, it was not completed due to 

lack of funding. We feel that the completion of the Auditorium and Athletic Facilities will significantly enhance the activities and services that Chief Leschi Schools 

is able to offer to the school community and our Tribe. We will request your support 

for the fiscal year 2004 BIA budget for the following; —$1,554,989 for the completion of the Chief Leschi School Auditorium; and 

—$2,903,020 for design and construction of the Chief Leschi School Athletic Facilities Development. 

Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement.—The Puyallup Reservation is located in the 

urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the State of Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation and related urban service area contains 17,000∂ Native Americans from over 

200 Tribes and Alaskan Villages. The Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division 

currently has fifteen (15) commissioned officers to cover 40 square miles of reservation in addition to the usual and accustomed areas. The officers are charged with 

the service and protection of the Puyallup Reservation seven days a week, twentyfour hours a day. We currently operate with outdated equipment, patrol vehicles requiring constant repair and insufficient staff levels. With the continuing increase in 

population, increase in gang related activities on the Puyallup Reservation and the 

impact of the increase in manufacturing of meth amphetamines in the region, the 

services of the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement Division are exceeding maximum 

levels. 

A major area of concern is the status of the Tribe’s Regional Incarceration Facility. Due to damages from the February 2001 Nisqually earthquake, we have had 

to relocate to modular/temporary facilities. As a regional detention facility, the relocation to the modular facility not only impacts the Tribe’s ability to house detainee’s 

but also the approximately 173 native inmates that were incarcerated at the Puyallup Incarceration facility during the period of 2001–2002. Relocation to the modular facility has also impacted the Tribes ability to house juvenile detainees. With 

no juvenile facilities, Native American youth are sent to non-native facilities. 

We respectfully request congressional support to fund the BIA Law Enforcement 

program at levels adequate to operated law enforcement services at a safe and effective method and to fund the Department of Justice—Detention Facilities Construction program for fiscal year 2004. The following list is a brief summary of law enforcement needs of the Puyallup Nation Law Enforcement programs: —Juvenile Incarceration Facility—$1,000,000 (est.); 

—Staffing for Juvenile Facility—8 employees @ $320,600; 

—Adult Incarceration Facility—$2,500,000 (est); 

—Additional staff for dispatching center—3 employees @ $120,800; 

—Additional Officers—4 @ $225,900; 

—Equipment; firearms, radios and equipment—$30,000; 

—Technologies, hardware and software—$80,000; 

—Patrol vehicles—2 @ $60,000; 

—Training—$30,000. 

Fisheries & Natural Resources Management.—The Puyallup Tribe as steward for 

land and marine waters in the Usual and Accustomed fish and shellfish areas has 

treaty and Governmental obligations and responsibilities to manage natural resources for uses beneficial to the regional community. Despite our diligent program 

efforts, the fisheries resource is degrading and economic losses are incurred by Indian and Non-Indian fisherman, and surrounding communities. Our Resource Management responsibilities cover thousands of square miles in the Puget Sound region 

of the State of Washington with an obligation to manage production of anadromous, 

non-anadromous fish and shellfish resources. Existing levels of support are inadequate to reverse the trend of resource/habitat degradation. Resource management 

is constrained due to funding shortfalls. We seek support and endorsement in the 

following areas: 

—Tribal Fisheries Resource Management, Hatchery Operation and Maintenance 

funding via Public Law 93–638 contracts have not increased substantially since 

establishment of base budgets in 1984. The demand on Puyallup Tribal Fisheries Program has grown exponential since the eighties and is currently faced 

by Endangered Species Act listings on Bull Trout and Chinook Salmon which 

is in an highly urbanized setting more so than any other Pacific Northwest 

Tribe. We request Committee support to increase base contract funding in the 

amount of $150,000.00 for additional fisheries staff. 

—Western Washington Timber-Fish-Wildlife Program—The TFW Program has allowed for the expansion of tribal participation in the state forest practice rules 

and regulations that have an affect on listed salmon populations. In fiscal year 

2003 Congress restored TFW base funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

However, this base funding increase is being proposed to be discontinued in the 
324

fiscal year 2004 budget. Continued funding in this area is essential to facilitate 

tribal participation in monitoring, research, data analysis and adaptive management processes that are a cornerstone to the TFW process. We request Committee support for base funding level of $3,555,000 to the TFW fiscal year 2004 

budget. 

Tribal Priority Allocation & Contract Support Costs.—The President’s fiscal year 2004 budget calls for $2.3 billion to be allocated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

which is an increase of $65,900,000 over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. This request includes $777,000,000 for Tribal Priority Allocations (TPA), a $2,100,000 increase over the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. Although the increases are a positive 

commitment by the Administration, they still fall short of providing adequate funding for critically needed tribal programs supported by TPA funding. TPA budget activity includes the majority of funding used to support on-going services at the ‘‘local 

tribal’’ level, including; law enforcement, natural resources management (fisheries), 

child welfare, housing, tribal courts and other tribal governmental services. TPA has 

not received adequate funding to allow tribes the resources to fully exercise self-determination and self-governance. Further, the small increases TPA has received 

over the past few years has not been adequate to keep pace with inflation. At a minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following; 

—Support by Congress of the President’s fiscal year 2004 request for TPA in- crease of $2,100,000, for a total request of $777,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 TPA 

funding 

Another concern the Puyallup Tribe has with the fiscal year 2004 budget request 

is the on-going issue of contract support costs. The President’s fiscal year 2004 

budget request includes $135,300,000 to address the Bureau of Indian Affairs continuing contract support costs and $0 for the Indian Self-Determination Fund to address the needs of tribes taking on new Bureau of Indian Affairs programs. At a 

minimum, we request your support and endorsement in the following; 

—Support by Congress of the President’s fiscal year 2004 request for an increase in contract support cost funding of $135,300,000, and include a $3,000,000 request for the Indian Self-Determination Fund for new Bureau of Indian Affairs 

programs contracted by tribes. Full funding of Contract Support is a mandate 

towards the full realization of Self-determination and Self-governance. 

DHHS Indian Health Service.—Funding for the Indian Health Service fails to 

meet the needs of health services for Native Americans. The Puyallup Tribe has 

been operating their health care programs since 1976 through the Indian Self-determination Act, Public Law 93–638. The Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) is 

a successful ambulatory program that provides comprehensive ambulatory medical 

dental, mental health, drug and alcohol treatment services to an expanding population in Tacoma and Pierce County, Washington. In fiscal year 2002 it was the 

most productive Indian health program in the tri-state areas of Washington, Oregon 

and Idaho. 

Adequate funding for the continued operations and delivery of quality care is essential. PTHA, like most IHS facilities, is being asked to do more with less. The cost 

of supplies and staff increases as does the eligible population increases, yet funding 

has not kept pace. IHS has lost $1.9 Billion in purchasing power since 1992. Unlike 

private practice counterparts, we can not raise fees, negotiate higher reimbursement 

from insurance companies or restrict the population we serve. Preserving purchasing power and ensuring that medical needs are met must be paramount to IHS 

and HHS. 

Highlights of the IHS Budget request include an increase of $73 million or a 2.5 

percent increase. The Budget Request also factors in approximately $31 million in 

cost savings from administrative reductions. The fiscal year 2004 Budget Request 

for the IHS continues to fall short of the $250 million to just maintain current services. The Puyallup Tribe will submit detailed written testimony to Congress on the 

fiscal year 2004 IHS Budget. 

We request congressional support for the fiscal year 2004 IHS budget in the following areas: 

—Fund medical and general inflation costs, which have again reached double digits; 

—Fund the increased expenses due to population growth. Although AI/

NApopulation has a 2.1 percent growth rate, growth has not been funded for 

11 years; 

—Index Contract Care to population growth and the medical inflation rate. Contract care is most vulnerable to inflation since services are provided by vendors 

constrained by IHS guidelines. There are no IHS hospitals in the Pacific Northwest which makes our clinic dependent on Contract Care for necessary specialty 

referrals and hospital care. 
325

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SAUK-SUIATTLE INDIAN TRIBE

The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe (Tribe) of Washington State has 200 members. We 

see ourselves as a small and disadvantaged tribe. The Tribes remote location at the 

foot of the Cascade Range coupled with its small size places it in a position where 

it is unable to compete with larger and more affluent tribes for scarce federal resources. Sauk-Suiattle does not operate a casino and because of its location will 

never have that opportunity. In the 1940’s and 1950’s, Senators Jackson and Magnuson worked unsuccessfully to ensure the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe a reservation 

land base within its homeland. Following the Land Allotment era in the United 

States there were still millions of unclaimed acres within the Tribes’ traditional 

areas in Washington State. These lands were eventually transferred to other federal 

agencies and to Washington State; Sauk-Suiattle was left out and remained landless 

until 1980. In 1980 the Tribe purchased 23 acres of land with grant funding to provide essential housing for Tribal members. As a small Tribe, our needs are magnified, and competition for resources is fierce. All Tribal operational costs are funded 

under grants and contracts, which provide less than 70 percent of need. The Tribe 

requests $10.276 Million from the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies’ 

appropriations for fiscal year 2004 to support the following priorities: 

1. ∂$100,000 for Homeland Security to protect our Tribal communities. 

2. ∂$250,000 to Tribal Budget Base for Aid to Tribal Government operations, in 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs Tribal Priority Allocation line item including 100 percent Contract Support Costs. 

3. ∂$100,000 to Education in the BIA Education Program Account. 

4. ∂$450,000 to study the Mountain Goat herds depletion in the Northern Cascades including a 3 year study on the causes and action needed to correct the decline. 

5. ∂$200,000 to BIA Law Enforcement, for additional program operations, salary 

increases, equipment, training, and jail contract funds. To be added to the BIA TPA, 

Public Safety and Justice, Law Enforcement Tribal Agency Account. 

6. ∂$100,000 to restore and enhance the Sauk-Suiattle cemetery damaged by the 

United States Navy training in 1997. 

7. ∂$1.301 million. For the Northwest Intertribal Court System to provide court 

related services to nine tribes and for a regional appellate court system. 

Other requests.—∂$100,000 to conduct a Comprehensive Needs Assessment of the 

Sauk-Suiattle membership. This is requested as a one-time non-recurring cost to 

TPA, BIA. ∂$350,000 for Cultural Research funding for anthropological and archaeological studies specific to Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. No research studies, published or unpublished, exist on the Sauk-Suiattle. This is needed to preserve Tribal 

history, cultural preservation, documentation and protection of historical and sacred 

sites, identification of burial grounds, and to restore language. ∂$575,000 to develop economic enterprises for the Tribe with funding to be added to BIA Tribal 

Government Account; ∂$100,000 to Tribal Base for Indian Child Welfare for additional staff, program enhancements, program resources, and the development of a 

much needed short term emergency placement home for foster children, added in 

the BIA, TPA for Human Services, ICWA Account. ∂$50,000 to Tribal Housing 

Base Budget for HIP and administrative management. ∂$100,000 to finally establish title, responsibility and ownership of tribal allotments, Tenas Creek Cemetery, 

and Suiattle Cemetery; and, then to place those allotments that are Tribal property 

under Tribal management through Public Law 93–638. The multiple jurisdiction 

and joint responsibilities that currently exists between the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe, the 

U.S. Forest Service and the BIA, need to be clarified. (Mitigating settlement has not 

yet been achieved from damages caused by the US Navy’s use of the Suiattle Cemetery for training maneuvers in 1997). ∂$5.5 Mil for planning and acquisition of 

lands and the construction of homes and to protect the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribes’ 

Natural Resources, Gathering, Hunting and Fishing Areas. To maintain access to 

all Rights without infringements. 

PRIORITY REQUESTS-NARRATIVE

1. Homeland Security.—Tribes are not funded to provide essential homeland security measures, including protection of drinking water sources, public safety, and 

emergency planning. Current funding is allocated to the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, and the Department of Defense, with no allocation to Tribal governments. We request $100,000 new funding for this initiative. 

2. Increase in Core Tribal Government Infrastructure.—Sauk-Suiattle currently receives a paltry $160,000 in recurring funding to conduct all aspects of Tribal government, including the Legislative Body, Natural Resources, Tribal Court and all Social 

Services and Education programs. The Tribe requests an additional $250,000 appro-
326

priation increase above the $160,000 allocated to the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe 

through the BIA Tribal Priority Allocations, Tribal Government, Other Aid to Tribal 

Government Budget Base. To strengthen its position to maintain a stable government, these additional funds would employ or purchase legal assistance, a grant & 

contracts manager, and a business planner & developer, to assist in the protection 

of the Tribes’ natural resources, increase Tribal court capacity beyond the current 

four (4) hours per month, and employ staff support for Tribal governmental activities. This includes the replacement of federal excess property, government office 

equipment and furnishings that the Tribe has been using since the 1970’s. The 

Tribe is requesting funding of the Contract Support Costs at 100 percent. 

3. Education.—The Tribes’ current funding from the BIA includes less than 

$4,000 for higher education. This funding is totally inadequate and provides for very 

little educational assistance to the Tribal members. The Tribe requests that BIA 

Education funding be increased by $100,000 to provide educational opportunities to 

our Sauk-Suiattle Tribal members, so that we do not leave anyone behind. 

4. Mountain Goat Herd Study.—For the restoration of the mountain goat herds 

which have been depleted in the Northern Cascades. The mountain goat is integral 

to the cultural heritage of the Tribe. It is a Tribal resource providing for the unique 

mountain heritage of the Tribes’ culture. It is a source for food, cultural and ceremonial objects, and the origin of our cultural belief system. The last hunt by Tribal 

members was 7 years ago due to the scarcity of the mountain goat stock. The 

$450,000 requested would provide funds to conduct a three-year study of the goats 

in the Northern Cascades range, and to develop preservation and protection plans 

of this tribal resource. 

5. BIA Law Enforcement.—The Tribe continues to have inadequate law enforcement funding, especially in respect to Homeland Security issues. The Tribe needs 

to keep pace with current events and technology within its law enforcement department and is requesting $200,000 funding to ensure access to 911 across the nation, 

a minimum of one full-time law enforcement officer on per shift, twenty-four hours 

each day. Currently the Tribe has two forty-hour a week officers under its BIA contract. The Police Department requests additional funding for officer’s salaries after 

the 3-year grant funding expires. This should include funding for all Indirect Costs 

to the Tribe. We just recently separated some functions from a joint organization 

and we request funding for a complete Fisheries Enforcement program. 

6. Suiattle Cemetery Reparation.—In 1997 the Navy destroyed the Sauk-Suiattle 

Indian Tribes’ cemetery. At issue here is the destruction of the headstone grave 

markers, foliage, and sentiments that were damaged during the training maneuvers. The grave markers were displaced and proper location cannot be reestablished. 

The title ownership and responsibility of this cemetery must finally be resolved. 

7. Northwest Intertribal Court System.—The ‘‘Circuit Court ‘‘ System provides judicial, prosecutorial services to nine member tribes judicial process. The System operated on $597,584 last year with an unmet need of $1,300,997. Tribal courts are 

essential for tribal sovereignty & providing due process to individuals within tribal 

jurisdiction. 

OTHER REQUESTS

a. Needs Assessment.—For a Comprehensive Needs Assessment of the Tribal community population to determine social, economic, education, housing, environmental, 

and cultural preservation needs. The Assessment will provide information for short 

and long term Tribal planning to enhance the delivery of coordinated services to 

Tribal community members. This request of $100,000 is for a one-time, non-recurring cost. 

b. Cultural Research.—$350,000 is requested to conduct formal archaeological 

studies on identified sites, including the recording of tribal history and culture 

through an anthropological study, a recording of our unique language, and restoration of the language. No formal studies exist on the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. 

Knowledge about a Tribes’ past is necessary to better understand the scale of 

progress, or lack thereof. And, in the case of the Sauk-Suiattle people we have defied the odds of extinction by surviving and retaining our traditional and cultural 

ways. 

c. Land Acquisition.—The Sauk-Suiattle Tribe has 200 members, 20 houses on the 

reservation, one community building, and no vacant sustainable land to develop a 

Tribal economy. The Tribal unemployment rate is more than 65 percent. Over 80 

percent of our employed tribal members make less than $7,000 a year. The Tribe 

would provide employment, generate Tribal revenue, decrease dependency on federal funds, and enable our members to return to their ancestral homelands with the 

increased land base. The Tribe is looking to protect their natural resources, hunting, 
327

fishing and gathering rights. We request a special appropriation of $5.5 million for 

the Tribe to purchase land. 

d. Increase Economic Development Enterprise.—The Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe is 

focused on developing economic self-sufficiency. Since these efforts require dedicated 

time to expedite results, the Tribe requires a stable economic incubation period of 

three years for funding in order to: (1) Hire a business manager/planner to focus 

on the effort, (2) Develop business plans, (3) Developing business codes, and (4) Initiate a viable financial enterprise(s). The Tribe has calculated a three-year cost of 

$575,000 for this project. 

e. Increase in BIA Indian Child Welfare.—Requests that $100,000 in appropriations be added to the Tribes’ base budget of $50,000 through the BIA Tribal Priority 

Allocations, Human Services, Indian Child Welfare Act account for ICW program development or enhancements. The increased funds will go towards: (1) A proposed 

Emergency-Crisis Placement Home, (2) To develop a training program for the nonNative foster families serving the Tribe to better understand the Tribes’ culture; and 

(3) Develop a Family Reunification program that will provide resources and training 

for families ready to reassume their roles as parents or are at risk of losing their 

families. Of our 200 tribal members, 80 are under the age of eighteen. 

f. Housing.—Addition to the Housing Improvement Program (HIP) to repair and 

improve current houses of the Tribal members. Plus, provide for administrative 

costs to manage the housing program. The $50,000 requested would provide the 

funds to cover these costs. 

g. Allotments.—There are several thousand acres of unresolved Tribal allotments 

that should be factored into study. These lands (5,000∂ acres) were allotted to Tribal members and then taken without compensation in 1897 when the Mt. BakerSnoqualmie National Forest was created. Tribal cemeteries are located within the 

area of the allotted lands. The cemetery sites are sacred sites and need protection. 

We need documents from the U.S. Forest Service that indicate that the United 

States Government is holding these sites in trust for the Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe. 

This proposal is to initiate the Public Law 93–638 management of these sites by 

the Tribe under the BIA trust status. This will address and clarify the issue of ownership. 

Regional American Indian Appropriations Priorities.—The Sauk-Suiattle Indian 

Tribe supports the following regional requests from the following Indian consortiums and organizations: Skagit System Cooperative, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Western Washington 

Indian Employment and Training Programs, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, 

and the Small Tribes of Western Washington organization. Plus, the U.S. Forest 

Service funding request to protect, study and manage Mountain Goat habitat. 

National American Indian Appropriations Priorities.—We urge that funding for 

tribes, their programs and their developments be given the highest priority. 

We urge your consideration of our request and appreciate the consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA

The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement regarding the 

Tribe’s fiscal year 2004 request for funding from programs in the Department of the 

Interior (DOI). The Tribe requests that Congress: 

—Continue to provide $396,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for water quality 

and quantity studies by the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Miccosukee Tribe 

of Indians, to be equally divided between the Tribes; and 

—Provide $864,000 to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Water Management Planning 

and Pre-Development account for the Seminole Tribe for water quality studies 

and other ecosystem restoration studies, as a part of the Seminole Tribe’s Everglades restoration efforts. 

The Tribe’s Everglades Restoration Initiative is a comprehensive water conservation system designed to improve the water quality and natural hydropatterns in the 

Big Cypress Basin. The Initiative, as implemented on the Big Cypress Reservation, 

is designed to mitigate the degradation the ecosystem has suffered through decades 

of flood control projects and urban and agricultural use. It will also provide an important public benefit: a new system to convey excess water from the western basins 

to the Big Cypress National Preserve, where water is vitally needed for rehydration 

and restoration of lands within the Preserve. This Initiative will contribute to the 

overall success of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) as authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000). 

Department of Interior funding has helped the Tribe develop restoration programs 

and projects and ultimately define its role in the overall South Florida Ecosystem 
328

effort. The Seminole Tribe continues to make significant contributions to the restoration effort and looks forward to a continued partnership with DOI toward 

achieving our common goals. 

The Seminole Tribe reviewed many federal programs in search of funding opportunities for the design, engineering, and construction of the projects that compose 

the Everglades Restoration Initiative. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs have been identified as appropriate matches for the Tribe’s Everglades Restoration Initiative. The 

Tribe and the Corps initiated an agreement for design and construction of the western portion of the Big Cypress Reservation, along with a canal that transverses the 

Reservation, as a Critical Project under the authority of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. Initial construction activities on this project are nearly complete and the detailed planning activity for the balance of the project. The NRCS 

has identified a number of Farm Bill programs and the Small Watersheds Program 

as suitable for funding the design, planning, and construction of the project on the 

eastern portion of the Reservation. 

The funds provided by the DOI have made it possible for the Tribe to initiate the 

research necessary to allow the Corps and NRCS to complete final project designs. 

The Tribe continues to spend Tribal funds to advance the research and design and 

is prepared to provide the required cost share payments as required by the different 

federal programs. In addition, the results of studies the Tribe helps pay for with 

both the Critical Ecosystem Study Initiative (CESI) funds from NPS and the BIA 

funds will be applicable to other CERP projects. 

FUNDING HISTORY

The DOI, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), has provided the Seminole Tribe with $199,500 in each of the fiscal years 1994 through 2002, half of the 

$399,000 line item. In fiscal year 2003, $396,000 was appropriated. The Tribe has 

used this BIA funding to complete studies and water quality and quantity monitoring that has proven critical to the Tribe’s leading role in Everglades restoration. Through the NPS’s CESI program, Interior provided the Tribe with $390,000 in fiscal year 1997, $920,000 in fiscal year 1998, $684,125 in fiscal year 1999, $230,000 

in fiscal year 2000, and $220,000 in fiscal year 2001. The Tribe did not receive any 

fiscal year 2002 CESI funds. The Seminole Tribe uses CESI funds to monitor and 

analyze the quality and quantity of water coming onto and leaving the Reservation 

and to conduct scientific studies to determine nutrient impacts. For example, the 

Tribe studied the assimilative capacity of the C&SF canals for nutrients, phosphorus in particular. The results of such monitoring and studies will be available 

to others studying ecosystem degradation and developing plans to arrest the harm. 

DETAIL ON FISCAL YEAR 2004 FUNDING REQUEST

Continued funding at an increased level is necessary for the Tribe to complete a 

number of studies that will support the design, construction, and operation of the 

Big Cypress water conservation project. Funding through the BIA budget is also 

necessary because the source of supplemental funding in prior fiscal years (the NPS 

CESI account) has become so low as to not support the studies originally funded 

with the CESI funds. 

Specific studies that would be supported through the increased level of BIA funding include the following: 

—Forested Wetland Nutrient Uptake Research designed to address how to restore 

and maintain wetland communities of plants and animals weakened by the adverse impact of poor water quality and desiccation by re-establishing natural 

hydrology and water quality; 

—Seminole Tribe Data Collection and Monitoring designed to access ecosystem 

damage and explore methods to restore and enhance natural habitats; and 

—Early Detection and Management of the Invasion of the Big Cypress Reservation by the Exotic Climbing Fern designed to prevent this invasive species from 

negating the restoration and preservation of native wetland communities. 

Most of this research is likely to be applicable to most areas of the Big Cypress 

Basin where similar forested wetland bio-regions exist. 

CONCLUSION

The Tribe understands that the President’s government-wide management plan 

issued in August 2001 directed the Energy Department to align its applied-research 

projects to performance goals. We also understand that, eventually, the results of 

the Energy Department’s efforts will be used as a model for examining the effectiveness of research and development programs throughout the government. The Tribe’s 
329

research projects for which this testimony requests funding support the performance 

goals of the ecosystem restoration projects the Tribe is building with other federal 

agencies. Further, the results of the applied research for which the Tribe seeks 

funding will enhance the effectiveness of the physical projects. 

Improving the water quality of the basins feeding into the Big Cypress National 

Preserve and the Everglades National Park is vital to restoring the Everglades for 

future generations. By granting this appropriation request, the federal government 

will be taking a substantive step towards improving the quality of the surface water 

that flows over the Big Cypress Reservation and on into the delicate Everglades ecosystem. Such responsible action with regard to the Big Cypress Reservation, which 

is federal land held in trust for the Tribe, will send a clear message that the federal 

government is committed to Everglades restoration, and the Tribe’s role in this historic ecosystem restoration effort. 

The Seminole Tribe is working hard to realize the environmental benefits the Reservation and the surrounding ecosystem need. The Tribe is making substantial commitments, including the dedication of over 9,000 acres of land for water management improvements. However, as the Tribe moves forward with its contribution to 

the restoration of the South Florida ecosystem, a substantially higher level of federal financial assistance is needed as well. 

The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the federal government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not just the Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians dependent 

on a reliable supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all 

Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the Seminole Tribe of 

Florida. The Tribe will provide additional information upon request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHWEST TRIBAL FISHERIES COMMISSION

APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

The Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission (SWTFC) respectfully requests a 

Congressional appropriation of $150,000.00 for fiscal year 2004. The funds will be 

used toward achieving the goals of the SWTFC: (1) support the professional development and sustainable funding of Tribal fisheries resource management and conservation capabilities, (2) restore and expand Southwest (SW) tribal recreational 

fishing programs to promote economic development and conservation capacity building on tribal lands by providing enhanced outdoor recreation opportunities, and (3) 

build meaningful, well-coordinated partnerships with tribal, state, federal and local 

interests on issues of common concern that generate regional benefits. 

BACKGROUND OF SWTFC

The SWTFC is a non-profit organization formed in September 2002 (using a 

$91,000.00 base-funding contract through the Bureau of Indian Affairs) to assist Indian Tribes in the southwestern United States to develop and organize a more comprehensive and collaborative approach to securing the futures of their respective 

fisheries management programs, and to generally support tribal capacity building. 

The SWTFC purpose is to mobilize Tribes to work in a more coordinated and strategic fashion to secure underlying recreational fishing programs and to advance 

meaningful resource management projects/initiatives that strike a sustainable balance between economic development and resource conservation on tribal lands. 

The Southwestern Tribes served by the SWTFC (presently, those Tribes and 

Pueblos within the states of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada and 

Southern California) hold significant lands and natural resources, and have become 

important contributors to the development of regional recreation economies and resource conservation efforts. Many of these tribes have developed and relied heavily 

upon economies that are natural resource and recreation based, with recreational 

fishing programs evolving into important components of tribal social fabric and economic viability. Furthermore, with tribes being ineligible for long established Federal-Aid conservation funding programs such as Pittman-Robertson, Dingell-Johnson, and Wallup/Breaux, tribal recreational programs provide critical revenue 

sources that enable many Tribes to fund important conservation work on their 

lands. In addition to providing high quality regional recreational fishing opportunities, SW tribal resources/programs also play significant roles in regional conservation efforts, with a number of Tribes having been at the forefront in the development of successful native-fish conservation and recovery programs for species such 

as the Apache trout, Colorado River Cutthroat trout, Rio Grande Cutthroat trout, 
330

Gila topminnow, Gila chub, Bonytail chub, Razorback sucker and Silvery minnow, 

to name a few. 

In developing these core enterprises and conservation programs over many decades, SW Indian Tribes have worked closely with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and have become completely reliant upon the network of National Fish 

Hatcheries (NFH) located on Indian lands to support their fisheries programs. A 

steady shift of USFWS policy and budget priorities through recent decades has led 

to a gradual deterioration of tribal recreational fishing programs and the fish hatchery facilities upon which these programs depend. The recent (2000) closure of the 

Mescalero NFH on the Mescalero Apache Reservation (NM), together with increasing unmet demands for both sport and native fish management resources on Indian 

lands throughout the southwest provide clear evidence of this decline. These trends 

and challenges have mobilized Tribes to organize their efforts in a more strategic 

and results-oriented fashion, through the SWTFC, with state, federal and local partners to preserve the integrity/viability of their recreation and conservation programs. 

The SWTFC seeks to develop and foster these working relationships, while further serving as a ‘‘capacity-building’’ resource to Tribes in helping them to plan and 

develop projects and programs that, through time, strike a sustainable balance between recreation/resource-based economic development and scientifically sound conservation. In pursuing this ‘‘capacity-building’’ objective, the SWTFC will seek to secure the economic/financial underpinnings of Tribal fisheries programs while jointly 

cooperating, as appropriate, with federal, state, tribal and local partners to enhance 

professional management capabilities on tribal lands. 

The SWTFC will further serve as a regional ‘‘conduit’’ among its member-tribes 

and state, federal and local partners to encourage the development of cooperative 

inter-agency conservation efforts using a ‘‘landscape’’ approach to maximize benefits. 

The SWTFC intends to establish professional steering Committees, comprised of regional tribal/non-tribal experts, to formulate management standards and protocols 

that assist Tribes in developing sustainable programs and otherwise guide ongoing 

research and administrative actions. Non-tribal partners, like the USFWS, will benefit from the approach of having the SWTFC providing a vehicle to improve coordination with tribal governments on a regional basis, which will, in turn, result in 

more efficient and effective allocation of outside agency resources on programs of 

mutual concern. 

The SWTFC is currently complimenting and leverage existing USFWS technical 

assistance programs. With the help of USFWS, the SWTFC is assessing recreational/native fish management needs and contributions of SW Tribes. In addition, the SWTFC expects to assist with resource and business planning, identifying 

and developing feasible fish hatchery/rearing capabilities (including those for nativefish), and establishing a regional/watershed approach to developing and executing 

more effective regional conservation efforts. 

ORGANIZATION, MANAGEMENT & BUDGET OF THE SWTFC

The SWTFC is comprised of member Tribes who have designated tribal representatives to the Commission. SWTFC is governed by Officers, all experienced in tribal 

resource conservation and/or business management, who are duly elected from member-tribe representatives. Officers and management of the SWTFC will be supported 

by key representatives from regional partner agencies or interests to conduct appropriate program/project reviews and otherwise provide management recommendations to the Board. 

SWTFC operations are managed by an Executive Director who is experienced in 

both business and conservation management (B.S. Wildlife Ecology and M.B.A.), is 

a former Director of a prominent southwestern tribal fish & wildlife organization 

(White Mountain Apache Tribe, AZ), and has extensive hands-on experience managing tribal programs and working with various government agencies and private 

interests. At its inception, the SWTFC will also employ a full-time Administrative 

Assistant and a Biologist/Project Manager. The complete operating budget for the 

SWTFC (salaries, office, project support, travel, supplies, etc.) is projected to be 

$250,000.00. 

CONCLUSION

The SWTFC and the Mescalero Apache Tribe are taking the lead in rehabilitating 

the fish hatchery to transform it into a viable tribal economic enterprise in the 

Southwest. Again, the SWTFC and Mescalero respectfully request your support. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony before the Committee. 

If you have any questions, please contact our Washington, DC counsel Shenan 
331

Atcitty at 202–457–7128 or John Cooley, SWTFC Executive Director, can be reached 

at 928–368–5492. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE

Thank you, distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, for accepting written 

testimony from the Squaxin Island Tribe on the fiscal year 2004 Budgets for the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS). 

The Squaxin Island Tribe, a signatory of the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty, has a 

2002 year-end enrollment of 736 and an on-reservation population of 400 living in 

103 homes (18 new homes will be occupied in 2003). Squaxin has an estimated service area population of 2,747, a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an unemployment rate of about 30 percent, according to the BIA Labor Force Report. According 

to the Mason County Economic Development Council, Squaxin is the fourth largest 

employer in Mason County. 

The BIA and IHS are preparing to re-organize. We are concerned that this will 

come at the expense of diminishing tribal programs and the delivery of tribal services. Therefore, we ask that the Subcommittee include language directing both the 

BIA and IHS not to reduce funds appropriated by this Subcommittee to offset Departmental or agency shortfalls, to support reorganization plans, or trust reform initiatives without consulting with Tribal Leadership. This language should be included in future appropriations bills for these agencies. 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS

—$5.42 million for Tribal Infrastructure Improvements 

—$250,000 to support the design and construction of new fire station 

—$940,000 for Public Safety and Justice Department 

REGIONAL REQUESTS

Support all requests and recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest 

Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission. 

SELF-GOVERNANCE AND NATIONAL REQUESTS

1. Provide a minimum of $25,000,000 in BIA Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) General Increase for inflationary adjustment; 

2. Provide $5 million increase for BIA and $98 million for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC); 

3. Provide $4.5 million increase to the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Tribal 

Self-Governance; 

4. Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth increase to maintain existing health care services; and, 

5. Support all requests and recommendations of the National Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board. 

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS—$5.42 MILLION

ESTIMATED COSTS OF SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE’S INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 

Improvement Cost 

Replacement of potable water infrastructure lost to road realignment ............................................................. $773,000

Additional potable water storage—housing and government area ................................................................... 784,000

Additional potable water distribution lines for new housing ............................................................................. 396,000

Enhance potable water system-economic development zone ............................................................................. 761,720

New wastewater treatment plant-economic development zone .......................................................................... 2,004,000

Wastewater collection system-economic development zone ................................................................................ 700,000

Total Infrastructure Project Estimated Costs ......................................................................................... 5,418,720

The City of Mason County, Washington is reconstructing the access road to the 

Squaxin Island Tribe’s main housing areas. A critical water supply main and water 

pumping station is in this right-of way and must be replaced due to the road realignment. Funding must be secured for this portion of the overall infrastructure 

improvement project by January 2004. 
332

REGIONAL PLAN

The Tribe is working with the Indian Health Service and a private engineering 

firm to complete a regional infrastructure plan. We are partnering with local agencies and surrounding landowners to ensure that the plan supports both the Tribe’s 

and its neighbors’ current and future needs. 

WASTEWATER

The topography of the Tribe’s land base dictates two separate wastewater collection and treatment systems—one serving the housing and government area and one 

serving the economic development zone. We have just completed a new wastewater 

treatment plant that supports the housing and government area. Using funds from 

USDA, IHS, and NAHASDA, the new plant, a Sequencing Batch Reactor, has the 

capacity to handle forecasted demand for the next twenty years. The economic zone, 

however, needs a new treatment facility to support both immediate and long-term 

growth. 

DRINKING WATER

The overall scarcity of safe drinking water points toward combining the Tribe’s 

three separate water systems. Three existing wells in the housing and government 

area continue to produce only marginal quantities of water. Research indicates that 

we will have to depend on water from the economic zone for most of our future 

needs. The preliminary plan calls for connecting all of the Tribe’s existing wells and 

up to three new wells. 

FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 4—$250,000

The Squaxin Island Tribe, in a joint effort with Mason County Fire Protection District 4, is developing a $1.0 million multi-bay manned facility to be located in 

the Kamilche area (about five miles South of Shelton, Washington in the 35th Legislative District and 6th Congressional District) to provide citizens with improved fire 

protection and emergency medical services. This current station serves a rural area 

of 52 square miles, approximate 6,700 residents and 2,500 homes and farm homes. 

The new fire station will have quarters for up to six resident firefighters, training 

facilities for 100 students, room for four emergency vehicles, and administrative offices. It could eventually become the headquarters for Fire District 4. Fire District 4 has committed to contribute $250,000 cash toward construction 

costs, as well as waive the fire protection fees, that were previously paid by the 

Tribe, for the next 25 years. The Tribe has committed to contribute $750,000 in cash ($500,000 Tribal funds 

are available) toward the design and construction of the new fire station, to contribute the land for the new facility, and to contribute $40,000 a year to Fire District 4 for operating costs. We are seeking $250,000 in appropriations to complete the funding for this 

project. 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE REQUEST—$940,000

The Squaxin Island Tribal Public Safety and Justice Department is dedicated to 

protecting lives, maintaining peace and ensuring that the property and resources of 

the Squaxin Island Tribe are protected through the enforcement of the Laws and 

Regulations set forth by the Squaxin Island Tribal Council. Over the past few years, 

the number of caseloads and calls have continued to increase placing a higher demand on the level of services needed in order to provide a program suitable to the 

needs of the growing community. The Squaxin Island Tribe is seeking $939,159 in additional funds to address the 

critical need to improve the services of the Squaxin Island Public Safety and Justice 

Department. The Squaxin Island Tribe is located in Kamilche, Washington in SE 

Mason County. The Squaxin Island Public Safety and Justice Department has continued to operate on funding levels insufficient to meet the needs of the department 

and community. This has resulted in operating a program at minimum capacity 

which has placed a negative impact on the service level provided to the Squaxin Island Community. Over the next few years the Tribe will be enhancing the shellfish 

habitat and production programs which will increase the demand on the water enforcement program to address issues of illegal harvesting. It is vitally important to 

ensure that natural resources are protected. 

The Department is in need of two (2) additional FTE officers for 24-hour coverage 

in order to ensure the safety of the community is being met. The process of protecting the public is hampered by lack of officers to provide the 24-hour coverage, 
333

which is very critical in life and death situations. Additional funds are also needed 

for the Justice program to fund a Public Defender whom the Tribe contracts with 

to provide legal representation to the community members. The Public Defender 

funding level is inadequate to meet the increasing need of the Squaxin Island Community. The graph below demonstrates the increasing caseload over the past few 

years. Also listed below is a budget which lists the additional funds that the Tribe 

needs to effectively meet the increasing service level demand. 

The Public Safety enhancements will benefit the Squaxin Island Tribe by providing the Department with sufficient funds to operate a full-fledged program providing the 24-hour coverage needed to ensure that the community, property and resources are being protected effectively. 

The Squaxin Island Tribe envisions a culturally and economically strong community of self-governing, resilient people, united by shared values and traditions—by 

protecting life and maintaining the peace, protecting tribal property and resources, 

serving in a reasonable and prudent manner, and carrying out these responsibilities 

diligently, courteously, and with pride. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

For thirty four years, United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has been providing 

postsecondary vocational education, job training and family services to Indian students from throughout the nation. We have received funding through the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs every year since 1981, and were shocked at the Administration’s 

request of zero funding for UTTC in the fiscal year 2004 Department of Interior 

Budget. 

The request by the United Tribes Technical College Board for the fiscal year 2004 

Bureau of Indian Affairs budget is: 

—$4 million in BIA funds for UTTC, which is $1 million over the fiscal year 2003 

enacted level minus a .65 percent cut. 

—$4 million in BIA funds for phase one of student housing construction, a need 

identified in the 2000 Department of Education study. 

—Requirement that the BIA place more emphasis on funding and administrative 

support for job training and vocational/technical education. The Adult Vocational Training program, funded at $9 million in fiscal year 2003 is but a shadow of its former self. There is no BIA leadership or advocacy for job training 

or vocational/technical education at the central or area levels. 

United Tribes Technical College: Unique Inter-tribal Educational Organization.—

Incorporated in 1969, United Tribes Technical College is the only inter-tribally controlled campus-based, postsecondary vocational institution for Indian people. UTTC 

is chartered by the five tribes in North Dakota and operate under an Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act contract with the BIA. This year 

UTTC enrolled 645 students from 44 tribes and 17 states. The majority of our students are from the Great Plains states, an area that, according to the 1999 BIA 

Labor Force Report, has an Indian reservation jobless rate of 71 percent. UTTC is 

proud that we have an annual placement rate (placement in jobs or in higher education) of 90 percent. We hope to enroll 2000 adult students by 2008. 

In addition, we serve 147 children in our pre-school programs and 148 children 

in our Theodore Jamerson Elementary school, bringing the population for whom we 

provide direct services to 940. 

UTTC Course Offerings and Partnerships with Other Educational Institutions.—

UTTC offers 14 vocational/technical programs and awards a total of 24 two-year degree and one-year certificates. The North Central Association of Colleges and 

Schools is the accrediting body for UTTC. UTTC was accredited again in 2001 for 

the longest period of time allowable—ten years or until 2011—and with no stipulations. 

We are very excited about the recent additions to our course offerings, and the 

particular relevance they hold for Indian communities. These new programs are: 

—Injury Prevention 

—On-Line Education 

—Nutrition and Food Services 

—Tribal Government Management 

—Tourism 

—Injury Prevention.—Through our Injury Prevention Program we are addressing 

the injury death rate among Indians, which is 2.8 times that of the total U.S. population We received assistance through Indian Health Service to establish the only 

degree granting Injury Prevention program in the nation. Injuries are the number 

one cause of mortality among Native people for ages 1–44 and the third for overall 
334

death rates. IHS spends more than $150 million annually for the treatment of nonfatal injuries and treatment of injuries is the largest expenditure of IHS contract 

health funds. (IHS fiscal year 2004 Budget Justification). 

—On-Line Education.—We are bridging the ‘‘digital divide’’ by providing webbased education and Interactive Video Network courses from our North Dakota campus to American Indians residing at other remote sites, including the Denver Indian 

community, and plan to serve rural-based Indian Tribes. Training is currently provided in the areas of Early Childhood Education and Computer Literacy. By the 

year 2005, students will be able to access full degree programs in Computer Technology, Injury Prevention, Health Information Technology, Early Childhood Education, and Office Technology, and others from these remote sites. 

High Demand exists for computer technicians. In the first year of implementation, 

the Computer Support Technician program is at maximum student capacity. In 

order to keep up with student demand, UTTC will need more classroom space, computers and associated equipment and instructors. Our program includes all of the 

Microsoft Systems certifications that translate into higher income earning potential 

for graduates. 

—Nutrition and Food Services.—UTTC will meet the challenge of fighting diabetes in Indian Country through education. As this Subcommittee knows, the rate of 

diabetes is very high in Indian Country, with some tribal areas experiencing the 

highest incidence of diabetes in the world. About half of Indian adults have diabetes 

(Diabetes in American Indians and Alaska Natives, NIH Publication 99–4567, October, 1999) 

The College currently offers a Nutrition and Food Services Associate of Applied 

Science degree to increase the number of American Indians with expertise in human 

nutrition and dietetics. Currently, there are only a handful of Indian professionals 

in the country with training in these areas. Future improvement plans include offering a Nutrition and Food Services degree with a strong emphasis on diabetes education and traditional food preparation. 

We have also established the United Tribes Diabetes Education Center to assist 

local tribal communities and UTTC students and staff in decreasing the prevalence 

of diabetes by providing diabetes educational programs, materials and training. 

UTTC has published and made available tribal food guides to our on-campus community and to tribes. 

—Tribal Government Management/Tourism.—Another of our new programs is 

tribal government management designed to help tribal leaders be more effective administrators. We continue to refine our curricula for this program. 

A newly-established education program is tribal tourism management. UTTC has 

researched and developed core curricula for the tourism program and are partnering 

with three other tribal colleges (Sitting Bull, Fort Berthold, and Turtle Mountain) 

in this offering. The development of the tribal tourism program was well timed to 

coincide with the national Lewis and Clark Bicentennial this year. As you may 

know, Lewis and Clark and their party spent one quarter of their journey in North 

Dakota. UTTC art students were commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation 

to create historically accurate reproductions of Lewis and Clark-era Indian objects 

using traditional methods and natural materials. Our students had partners in this 

project including the National Park Services and the Peabody Museum at Harvard 

University. The objects made by our students are now part of a major exhibition 

in the Great Hall at Monticello about the Lewis and Clark expedition. 

Job Training and Economic Development.—UTTC is a designated Minority Business Center serving Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota. We also administer 

a Workforce Investment Act program and an internship program with private employers. 

Economic Development Administration funding was made available to open a 

‘‘University Center.’’ The Center is used to help create economic development opportunities in tribal communities. While most states have such centers, this center is 

the first ever tribal center. 

Department of Education Study Documents our Facility/Housing Needs.—The 

1998 Vocational Education and Applied Technology Act required the U.S. Department of Education to study the facilities, housing and training needs of our institution. That report, conducted for the Department by the American Institutes for Research was published in November 2000 (‘‘Assessment of Training and Housing 

Needs within Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions, November 

2000, American Institute of Research’’) The report identified the need for 

$16,575,300 for the renovation of existing housing and instructional buildings ($8 

million if some existing facilities are converted to student housing) and $30,475,000 

for the construction of housing and instructional facilities. 
335

UTTC continues to identify housing as its greatest need. We have a huge waiting 

list of students some who wait from one to three years for admittance. New housing 

must be built to accommodate those on the waiting list as well as to increase enrollment. Enrollment for the 2002–2003 academic year has increased by 31 percent. In 

order to accommodate the enrollment increase, UTTC partnered with local renters 

and the Burleigh County Housing Authority. Approximately 40 students and their 

dependents were housed off campus. The demand for additional housing also presents challenges for transportation, cafeteria, maintenance and other services. 

UTTC is building a new 86-bed single-student dormitory on campus. UTTC 

formed a unique strategic alliance with the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, the American Indian College Fund, the Shakopee 

Mdwekanton Sioux Tribe and other sources to build the dormitory. The new dorm 

will help UTTC address its housing shortage. It will however create new challenges 

such as shortages in classroom, office and other support facility space. 

Existing housing must be renovated to meet local, state, and federal safety codes. 

In the very near future, some homes will have to be condemned which will mean 

lower enrollments and fewer opportunities for those seeking a quality education. 

Classroom and office space is at a premium. The College has literally run out of 

space. This means that the UTTC cannot expand its course offerings to keep up 

with job market demands. Most offices and classrooms that are being used are quite 

old and are not adequate for student learning and success. We were able to piece 

together three sources of funds (EDA, USDA, DOEd) to raise $1 million to renovate 

a building to create a new student life and technology center. 

Thank you for your consideration of our request. We cannot survive without he 

basic vocational education funds that come through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WIND RIVER IRRIGATION PROJECT IN WYOMING

Construction of Bureau of Indian Affairs-administered Wind River Irrigation 

Project (WRIP) began in 1905 as authorized by congressional legislation. Although 

construction continued off and on for over 50 years, the project was never completed. 

Currently, the WRIP is in a condition of extreme disrepair. Very little maintenance 

has been performed on the WRIP in the years since construction ceased. Studies 

commissioned by both the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes (Tribes) 

and the State of Wyoming, as well as BIA reports show that the WRIP has over 

$50 million in deferred maintenance. 

As the result of decades of neglect, many essential water delivery structures in 

the WRIP are in immediate danger of failing. As these structures fail, large portions 

of the WRIP will be left without water. Such failure will have a huge impact not 

just on the livelihoods of agricultural producers left without water, but also on the 

entire Fremont County economy. A study conducted in 2000 concluded that the 

WRIP has a maximum life of 5 to 10 years if a large-scale rehabilitation effort is 

not undertaken. 

The poor overall condition of the WRIP results in extremely inefficient use of 

water. Irrigation efficiencies in the WRIP range from 45 percent to as low as 27 percent. The inefficiency of the WRIP results in water shortages, even during normal 

or wet years. Water supply modeling done as part of a recent basin-wide planning 

effort undertaken by the State of Wyoming showed that the WRIP has one of the 

largest unmet needs of any irrigation project in the Wind River basin, even during 

wet years. During the past three years of drought, water shortages in the WRIP 

have been especially severe. 

The poor condition and water delivery in the WRIP leaves farmers in the WRIP 

at a competitive disadvantage with other farmers in the region who irrigate in nearby, better-funded irrigation districts (Midvale Irrigation District, Riverton Valley Irrigation District, and Leclair Irrigation District). 

To solve the problems on the Wind River Irrigation Project, a large-scale rehabilitation effort must be undertaken. The Tribes have completed numerous studies on 

WRIP rehabilitation, much of the engineering work has been done, and all that remains is to secure funding. The total cost of WRIP rehabilitation, based on studies 

that are several years old, is over $50 million. This cost is currently being updated. 

Completing a rehabilitation project of this magnitude will likely require a combination of federal and state funding. During the past legislative session, the Tribes 

worked closely with Wyoming legislators to pass into law a bill that will allow the 

Tribes to receive funding for water projects through the Wyoming Water Development Commission. In the months since the passage of this bill, the Wyoming Water 

Development Commission has been working closely with the Tribes to prepare an 

application for funds to help rehabilitate the WRIP. 
336

We sincerely hope that Congress will be able to appropriate funds in the amount 

of $3.5 million per year over a three year period on a non-reimbursable basis for 

rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation Project—to begin initial and emergency 

rehabilitation. These funds should be in addition to funds normally allocated to the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs for their irrigation projects. With a combination of federal 

and state funding, the WRIP can be rehabilitated for the benefit of everyone in the 

Wind River Basin. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ENEWETAK/UJELANG LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Subcommittee: Thank you for 

providing this opportunity to the people of Enewetak to describe issues that relate 

to our ability to live on Enewetak Atoll. Of immediate concern is increased funding 

of Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program. Consequently, this statement includes 

a request to increase the funding of the Department of Interior funded Enewetak 

Food and Agriculture Program by $309,000 from $1.391 million to $1.7 million. 

Other issues that relate to our ability to live on Enewetak Atoll are: Funding of 

the health care program; funding of the just compensation award issued by the Nuclear Claims Tribunal; resettlement of the Enjebi people on their home island of 

Enjebi; monitoring of the our people for radiation exposure; continued monitoring 

of the environment to determine current radiation levels; and, monitoring of the 

Runit dome. 

We would first like to address the continuing challenges that life on Enewetak 

presents. These challenges are the result of the severe damage inflicted on our atoll 

by the U.S. Nuclear Testing Program. This committee has helped us meet some of 

these challenges by funding the Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program. 

CONTINUED AND INCREASED FUNDING OF THE ENEWETAK FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

PROGRAM

This program is necessary because over one-half of Enewetak remains contaminated by radiation. The remaining fifty percent of the land was turned into a desertlike wasteland in the course of the nuclear testing program. As a result of such activities, there is insufficient food and other resources on Enewetak atoll to support 

the people. 

Congress recognized the predicament of the Enewetak people and in Section 

103(h) of the Compact of Free Association Act of 1985, Public Law 99–239, authorized funding for the Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program. Such funding provides imported food, an agriculture rehabilitation program, and the operation of a 

vessel. 

Much progress has occurred over the past several years with regard to the agriculture rehabilitation effort. In addition, we have become more and more involved 

with the soil rehabilitation effort and the planting and maintenance of food bearing 

plants. Increase in the funding from $1.1 million to approximately $1.4 million these 

past 2 years has helped the program keep up with inflation and has created a momentum that we would like to maintain. 

However, the increasing population, much improved agriculture rehabilitation 

techniques, and transportation expenses has increased the costs to the program. 

These costs are the costs of the necessary food imports; transportation costs for food 

imports; transportation costs of equipment, material, supplies, and fuel for the agriculture rehabilitation program; and labor costs for the accelerated agriculture effort. 

To meet these increased costs, the program needs to be increased to the sum of $1.7 

million in fiscal year 2003. The $1.7 million is broken down as follows: Food and 

cooking fuel costs, $550,000; agriculture costs (labor, equipment, material, supplies, 

fuel, operations and maintenance), $850,000; transportation costs (labor, fuel, operations and maintenance), $300,000. Included in the three foregoing categories is the 

cost of administration of the program. Due to the foregoing, we respectfully request 

that this committee increase the amount requested by the Administration for this 

program for fiscal year 2003 by the amount of $309,00, for a total of $1.7 million. 

We would now like to describe the award of $386 million made to us by the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal for damages we suffered as a result of the 

U.S. Nuclear Testing Program. We will briefly describe this development and then 

describe the necessity of resettling the Enjebi island members of our community on 

their home island, radiation monitoring of our people and the environment, and the 

background of the food and agriculture program and its components. 
337

FUNDING OF THE JUST COMPENSATION AWARD ISSUED BY THE NUCLEAR CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL

The issue most important to us is the funding of the $386 million award for just 

compensation made to the Enewetak people by the Nuclear Claims Tribunal. 

Enewetak was the site for forty-three of the sixty-seven nuclear bombs detonated 

by the United States in the Marshall Islands. The damages of the U.S. Nuclear 

Testing Program affect us to this day. It is important to remember that in 1947, 

prior to the removal of our people from Enewetak, the United States promised us 

that we would have all constitutional rights accruing to U.S. citizens, that we would 

be taken care of during our exile to Ujelang, and that we would not be exposed to 

any greater danger than the people of the United States. 

The constitutional rights to which we are entitled include the right to be justly 

compensated for the damages we suffered as a result of the U.S. nuclear testing program. In addition to the well documented promises made to us, the United States 

in the Compact (1) accepted responsibility for the just compensation owing for loss 

or damage resulting from its nuclear testing program and (2) agreed that the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal (‘‘Tribunal’’) make a final determination of 

the amount that would satisfy the constitutional requirement of just compensation. 

The Tribunal, following well established U.S. constitutional, legal, and regulatory 

principles, determined that the just compensation to be provided to us was an 

amount of $386 million in addition to what we received or will be received under 

the Compact. The funding of this amount by the United States would satisfy its constitutional obligation to us. This funding could be provided through the Changed 

Circumstances Petition process that has been presented to the U.S. Congress. Alternatively, the Congress could direct the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit 

to review and certify, or to reject in whole or in part, the award of the Tribunal 

similar to an existing Congressional provision that deals with judgments of the Marshall Islands courts against the U.S. arising from its administration of the Marshall 

Islands under the U.N. Trusteeship. 

It is important to note that this funding would provide us with the resources to 

rid our land of radiological contamination, rehabilitate the soil, revegetate the land, 

resettle the Enjebi people on their home island, and provide the means by which 

we could establish a local economy in the fishing and tourism sectors. The foregoing 

would permit us to once again become self-reliant and self-sufficient. Until this 

funding materializes, we require continued and increased funding of the Enewetak 

Food and Agriculture Program. 

RESETTLEMENT OF THE ENJEBI PEOPLE ON THEIR HOME ISLAND OF ENJEBI

We, the Enewetak people, consist of two groups: The people of the southern part 

of the atoll, the Enewetak group; and, the people of the northern part of the atoll, 

the Enjebi group. The Enjebi people have been exiled from their home island for 

a period of over 56 years. They have not been able to resettle their home island because it remains contaminated. As a result, the Enjebi people need to share the limited land and resources with the other Enewetak people on the islands of Enewetak, 

Medren and Japtan. As the populations grow, this is becoming an increasingly difficult situation. Yet Enjebi cannot be resettled in the near term because insufficient 

funding exists for the cleanup and resettlement. 

The situation at Enjebi is difficult since Enjebi Island was ground zero for a number of tests. In addition, it underwent bulldozing, scrapping and soil removal during 

the 1977–80 partial cleanup activities. In order to make the island habitable again, 

radiological remediation and soil and plant rehabilitation are required. As determined by the experts, the cost for the radiological remediation and soil and plant 

rehabilitation is approximately $118 million, which includes the cleanup and rehabilitation of the other northern islands which are part of the Enjebi people’s resources for food from land and marine areas. These costs are part of the just compensation award made to the Enewetak people by the Tribunal. 

In addition, the people require the housing, infrastructure, and other buildings 

necessary to permit them to live on the island while the rehabilitation is ongoing. 

These costs are estimated at $30 million. 

In short, the cleanup and resettlement of Enjebi is projected to cost $148 million. 

The best solution is for the funding of the Tribunal award which would provide the 

funding for the cleanup and rehabilitation of all the northern islands including 

Enjebi, and which would provide the funding for the housing and other necessary 

infrastructure at Enjebi. 
338

RADIATION MONITORING OF THE PEOPLE, THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE RUNIT DOME

Because of the residual radiation contamination at Enewetak Atoll, we and our 

environment need to be monitored. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the 

Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council have reached an agreement on an appropriate whole body counting and plutonium detection regime. The DOE responsibilities under such a regime need to continue until Enewetak is radiologically remediated. In addition, the Runit Dome (Cactus Crater Containment Site) contains 

over 110,000 cubic yards of material including plutonium and other radioactive debris. This site needs to be monitored to assure the integrity of the structure and 

to assure that no health risks from the radioactive waste site are suffered by us. 

To effect the foregoing, a long-term stewardship program of the Runit Dome needs 

to be implemented by the United States. 

FUNDING OF THE HEALTH CARE PROGRAM

In Section 102 of Public Law 96–205, the U.S. Congress, authorized a program 

of medical care and treatment for the peoples of the atolls of Bikini, Enewetak, 

Rongelap, Utrik and other Marshallese determined to be affected as a result of the 

U.S. Nuclear Testing Program in the Marshall Islands. The funding for such program continued, in an amount of $2 million annually for 15 years, under the terms 

of Article II Section 1(a) of the Agreement Between the Government of the United 

States and the Government of the Marshall Islands for the Implementation of Section 177 of the Compact of Free Association, Public Law 99–239. The funding for 

such medical care and treatment program expired as of October 21, 2001. The RMI 

has provided funding for the continuation of this program from the Section 177 trust 

fund. However, that fund is now so depleted that the RMI cannot fund the program 

in the future. The Congress in Section 104 of Public Law 96–205, intended such 

medical care and treatment program to continue unless terminated by the express 

approval of the Congress. Congress has not approved termination. The program 

needs to continue and the funding needs to be increased to $4 million annually to 

provide a medical safety net for the people of the 4 atolls and other Marshallese 

determined to have been affected by nuclear testing. Even at the $4 million level, 

the program will only be able to expend $28 per person per month for the program 

costs. The $4 million should include an inflation factor by being tied to the U.S. 

medical CPI. 

We would now like to describe the food and agriculture program: 

ENEWETAK FOOD AND AGRICULTURE PROGRAM

The Enewetak Food and Agriculture Program enables us to live on Enewetak. It 

provides funding for imported food, continued agriculture rehabilitation, operation 

of a motor vessel that brings us the imported food, and an operation and maintenance component conducted out of a facility on Enewetak known as the field station. 

Efforts made to increase food production.—The most significant aspects of the agriculture rehabilitation program are the infusion of nutrients into the soil and the 

planting of buffer plants along the island’s shore to protect the interior plants from 

salt spray. The infusion of nutrients into the soil is accomplished by digging trenches and placing organic material in the trenches along with a compost mixture of 

copra cake and chicken manure. This activity is extremely labor intensive and required the importation of copra cake and chicken manure. Although the work is progressing, additional funding is required to provide greater manpower and the necessary equipment, materials and supplies. 

Importation of food.—Imported food is required because of the poor soil condition 

of the land available to us and the radiation contamination of other lands. Imported 

food is now approximately $500,000 of the program budget and is expected to increase because of the increase in food costs and because of our growing population. 

These issues further illustrate the need to increase the program to $1.7 million. 

Vessel.—In 1999, we purchased, repaired, and refitted a 104-foot motor-vessel as 

a replacement vessel for our 54-foot motor-sailer, which sank. This replacement vessel, named the KAWEWA, has greater capacity for cargo and passengers than the 

previous vessel. The KAWEWA permits us to transport machinery, equipment, supplies and other necessary cargo. It also provides transportation to members of our 

community. Both the transport of cargo and people has become extremely difficult 

in the Marshall Islands because of the lack of transport vessels and aircraft. The 

KAWEWA provides the necessary lifeline for goods, materials, and transportation 

for our community. 

Field Station.—Operation and maintenance of the entire program is conducted out 

of a facility referred to as the Field Station. Field Station personnel provide all the 
339

required agricultural work; maintain, service, and operate the equipment required 

by the various components of the program; make payments and maintain books of 

accounts; and coordinate the procurement of food, material and equipment. 

CONCLUSION

We thank the Congress for its past support and its consideration of the items described above. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CENTRAL SIERRA ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE CENTER

Our organization provides the following recommendation and input for the fiscal 

year 2004 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Our 

Center is cognizant of the need for public land acquisition in our local region and 

the priorities that are important, given limited funding. This letter provides our fiscal year 2004 funding recommendations for Land and Water Conservation Fund 

projects and the Conservation Trust Fund. We urge that $450 million be allocated 

to the Federal LWCF program in fiscal year 2004. We specifically recommend $3.7 

million for the National Park Service to fund the acquisition of the unique Ackerson 

Meadow property and to also acquire the Hazel Green property, and $2 million to 

purchase Mojave National Preserve inholdings. We recommend $2.5 million for the 

U.S. Forest Service to acquire wilderness inholdings in Northern California. We recommend $2 million for the Bureau of Land Management to purchase wilderness 

inholdings in the desert lands under their management. As other groups have endorsed, we also agree that the Conservation Trust Fund should be funded at its 

dedicated amount of roughly $2 billion in fiscal year 2004. 

As you are aware, the LWCF is critically important for protecting important lands 

and at-risk resources in California and elsewhere. For example, in our local region, 

there is a 400-acre parcel of land (called the Ackerson Meadow property) that lies 

directly adjacent to Yosemite National Park. The forest on the Ackerson Meadow 

property contains nesting pairs of rare Great Gray Owls, and amazingly, the 

Ackerson Meadow property also contains riparian breeding habitat for the threatened Willow Flycatcher. The meadow system is both a wet and dry meadow complex 

that supports abundant wildflowers, ferns, and groundcovers, and the stream system of the property may contain rare Mountain Yellow-Legged Frogs. All of this is 

currently at risk as the property owners have placed the land on the open market, 

which could lead to its development and the permanent loss of an opportunity to 

add this unique and critical wildlife habitat to either Yosemite Park or the 

Stanislaus National Forest (which also abuts the property). This Ackerson Meadow 

parcel is representative of other precious, vitally important parcels that have national significance. Once they are developed or altered, the resource values that 

could last for countless generations could be forever lost. 

The following is a list of specific areas, including Ackerson Meadow, that deserve 

high priority consideration for immediate funding: 

Ackerson Meadow 

Out of the entire region that lies west and northwest of Yosemite National Park, 

there is no other public or private that provides as much important diversity and 

unique value as Ackerson Meadow. More than 100 bird species have been documented to use the property. Rare Great Gray Owls nest along the meadow edge. 

Willow Flycatchers breed along one section of the stream. There are Native American sites, one old homestead building, and many outstanding scenic values. The 

property is currently listed for sale to any interested buyers, and the potential for 

it to be developed or converted into a cattle ranch makes the priority for purchase 

extremely high. In addition, the current property owner has discussed logging the 

property if no buyer steps forward soon. Such logging would directly affect the nest 

stands needed by the Great Gray Owls. These 400 acres of spectacular meadow and 

forest could be purchased for $2,500,000 from the present owners and managed by 

the National Park Service for its outstanding wildlife values. If the property, instead, sold to developers or as a cattle ranch, the potential for any public land purchase would plummet, while any future purchase price would correspondingly climb 

dramatically. 

Wilderness Inholdings on Forest Service Land within California 

Each year, numerous private parcels that are inholdings within designated Wilderness are offered for sale by the landowner. For fiscal year 2004, we request 

$2,5000,000 to purchase available inholdings now available, including two properties 

in the Trinity Alps Wilderness area and in the Marble Mountains Wilderness Area. 
340

Both wilderness areas provide important habitat for wildlife and recreational opportunities to the public. The Pacific Crest Trail runs through both wilderness areas. 

The Trinity Alps wilderness is especially popular with hikers, offering numerous 

loop trails extending off the Pacific Crest Trail. The Marble Mountains Wilderness 

Area is known for its diverse forests of tanbark oak, madrone, Douglas fir, foxtail 

pine, and mountain hemlock. The private lands in the Trinity Alps and Marble 

Mountain areas represent only a small fraction of the California Forest inholdings 

that will be put on the market for sale in the coming years. Annual funding allocated specifically for critical forest inholdings would allow the Forest Service to purchase land on a prioritized need basis to prevent development of lands and protect 

areas of significant ecological value. 

Wilderness Inholdings on BLM lands within the Desert Region of California 

In southern California, the BLM Desert District manages 65 individual wilderness 

areas throughout the California desert. Hundreds of land acquisition opportunities 

exist among the 65 wilderness areas the BLM manages. Due to the numerous important ecosystems and habitats of these areas, the BLM would like an annual appropriation of $2,000,000 to purchase critical inholdings. For every $1,000,000 allocated, 1,500 acres of land can be acquired and protected. New opportunities arise 

each year as landowners place their property on the market. Some properties have 

more urgent funding needs and some properties are of greater ecological significance. With an annual funding allocation for critical inholdings, the BLM will be 

able to acquire and protect the most sensitive lands in the wilderness areas each 

year. 

Mojave National Preserve Inholdings 

The Mojave National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service, is a diverse ecosystem that contains sand dunes, Joshua tree forests, desert washes, dry 

lakes, and mile-high mountains. The landscape provides habitat to a wide variety 

of animals including bighorn sheep, coyotes, iguanas, wild burros, and the threatened desert tortoise. Numerous private inholdings exist within the National Preserve, some of which have proposed development by the owners in the past. As these 

inholdings become available for purchase it is essential that they be acquired for 

preservation to prevent development and critical habitat loss. The purchase of critical inholdings within the Mojave National Preserve is an ongoing project and we 

request funding of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2004. Funding will be used to secure 

the most urgent properties first. 

Hazel Green Property—adjacent to Yosemite National Park 

Yosemite, made famous by its spectacular mountain and valley scenery and its 

groves of giant Sequoia trees, is one of America’s oldest and best-loved national 

parks. The Hazel Green property, located on the western boundary of the park, is 

targeted for hotel development. Acquiring the Hazel Green property will help realize 

the transportation components of the Yosemite Valley plan, which is to reduce traffic congestion and crowding. The property will be listed with a local real estate 

agent shortly so funding of $1,200,000 for fiscal year 2004 is needed to acquire these 

lands. 

All of the properties described above provide important values that should be 

maintained in public ownership. Prices will never be lower in the future, and the 

threats to many of these areas make acquisition especially timely. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDUBON NEW YORK

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of Audubon New 

York, the State program of the National Audubon Society. My name is David J. Miller, the Executive Director of the organization that promotes the protection and 

proper management of birds, other wildlife and their habitats through advocacy and 

education. I am testifying in support of the Conservation Trust Fund, which should 

be fully funded at its dedicated level for fiscal year 2004, $2.08 billion. My primary 

reason for submitting this testimony is to respectfully request an allocation of $200 

million for the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) and $125 million for State Wildlife Grants. 

Your predecessors in the Congress had a simple, but brilliant, idea in the mid1960’s. They recognized that non-renewable resources, oil and gas, were being depleted on the Outer Continental Shelf, and billions of dollars of revenue were being 

realized by the Federal government through leases authorizing the exploration and 

removal of these commodities. About this time, a report had been issued by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, chaired by Laurence Rockefeller, 
341

which documented the need for quality and accessible outdoor recreation and recommended a funding source be identified so that other non-renewable resources 

could be safeguarded for their natural attributes and/or for their recreational value. 

A bi-partisan effort resulted in the creation of the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund in 1964. 

The LWCF is one of the components of the Conservation Trust Fund and has two 

basic elements: a federal program and a stateside matching grant program. The federal side provides funds to acquire land and water resources for national parks, forests, wildlife refuges and other public land. These are important purposes and we 

support the continued availability of money for federal use. As important, however, 

is the stateside program, which provides 50 percent matching grants to states and 

localities for the planning, acquisition, development and improvement of parks and 

recreational facilities. These are enormously important because they provide closeto-home opportunities for people to refresh their spirit, to interact with family and 

friends and to enjoy the healthful attributes of the great outdoors. The funds supplied by the federal government to this program are most efficient since they are 

matched by state and local dollars. Since its inception in 1964, more than 38,000 

projects have been funded and the LWCF has touched the lives of most every U.S. 

citizen in one way or another, whether they realize it are not. 

The fund is authorized at $900 million annually. Originally, the formula between 

federal and stateside funding provided that not less than 60 percent of the annual 

appropriation was to go to stateside projects. In the early 1980’s, the formula was 

changed to allow not more than 40 percent for the stateside program. Obviously, 

this was a substantial change and resulted in a further strain on stateside projects. 

Stateside funding trickled in from that time until 1995, when the funding dried up 

completely. 

Recognizing the importance of the funding, New York State carried the ball authorizing bond acts and other funding mechanisms to continue state projects and 

50 percent matching grants to municipalities for the same purposes authorized in 

the LWCF. The demand for these funds greatly exceeded their availability and in 

1998 Governor George E. Pataki called for the creation of an Empire State Task 

Force for Land and Water Conservation Funding. Ironically, Laurence Rockefeller 

agreed to serve as the Honorary Chair since he continues to believe in the importance of close-to-home recreational opportunities. Audubon New York, and an incredible number of diverse and concerned organizations, responded to the Governor’s call and under the direction of Parks Commissioner Bernadette Castro, and 

then Environmental Conservation Commissioner John Cahill, mobilized a massive 

grassroots campaign to revitalize the stateside LWCF. The result was unanimous 

and bipartisan support for the Fund by the New York Congressional delegation. 

As a result of the vocal support heard all around this Country, monies once more 

started to flow. New York received almost $2 million in fiscal year 2000, more than 

$4.5 million in fiscal year 2001 and more than $7 million in fiscal year 2002, and 

it looked like we were trending in the right direction. Even though the Conservation 

and Reinvestment Act (CARA) was not passed, there was a good feeling about the 

Conservation Trust Fund, which was authorized for 6 years, starting at $1.6 billion 

annually and was to grow by $160 million each year. Unfortunately, fiscal year 2003 

served to once more take the wind out of the proponent’s sails. Once more we started to go backwards. Once more we were disappointed, even though the need for respite and sanctuary is clearly greater today than it was in fiscal year 2001. 

We respectfully request that you stop the deterioration of these critical programs 

during a time of such need. We ask that you remember the vision of your predecessors in the mid 1960’s. We ask that you fully fund the Conservation Trust Fund, 

recognizing that this was the compromise presented when CARA failed! To go backwards from the reduced commitment cannot be justified, especially since it represents such a small amount in the relative scheme of domestic spending. 

For fiscal year 2004 please provide full funding for the stateside LWCF. $200 million will allow the states and their municipalities to continue to address the recreational needs of their citizenry. This number is higher than the $160 million requested by the Administration, but it is far below the original share authorized for 

the states. Audubon New York believes that ultimately the LWCF should be funded 

at its $900 million authorized level, and that amount should be evenly split between 

the federal and stateside programs. New York has funded more than 1,100 projects, 

in every County in the State, with LWCF funds. Since the year 2000, approximately 

60 projects have been funded throughout the state from eastern Long Island to the 

Niagara Frontier; from New York City to the Thousand Islands and from the Southern Tier to the Adirondacks. Valuable open space has been protected, ball fields 

built and trails aligned. None of these essential community amenities would have 
342

been available without the support of the Congress. We thank you for this, and we 

urge you to continue that good work in the future. 

The other Conservation Trust Fund program that we would like to add our support for today is the State Wildlife Grants program. This is another critical program, which provides money for wildlife conservation projects that stabilize, restore, 

enhance and protect wild species and their habitats. Although authorized at $150 

million, the Administration is only recommending funding at the $60 million level. 

Audubon New York urges an appropriation in the area of $125 million. We struggle 

daily to prevent species from becoming endangered, and with more than 1,000 species in such danger, we desperately need the funding requested. The federal government needs to remain a partner in this effort and we implore the appropriators to 

recognize that it is less expensive to protect them today than it would be to help 

them recover tomorrow. 

I thank you for this opportunity to share the thoughts of Audubon New York with 

you. Again, we are asking for full funding for the Conservation Trust Fund at $2.08 

billion; $200 million for the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund; and $125 

million for the State Wildlife Grants program. Let’s live up to the promises and commitments of the past; and let’s invest in our communities, families and children’s 

future. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND COALITION

Mr. Chairman, we, the Conservation Trust Fund Coalition, are writing to express 

our support for fully funding the Conservation Trust Fund (also known as the ‘‘Conservation Spending Category’’), the key to providing adequate levels of conservation, 

recreation, historic preservation, ocean conservation, and wildlife funds at the local, 

state, and federal level. 

As a broad and diverse coalition of conservation and civic organizations, historic 

preservationists, state wildlife directors, advocates for marine and coastal areas, 

park and recreation directors, advocates for urban and wilderness areas, outdoor 

recreation and sporting goods industry leaders, hunters and anglers, and youth 

sports groups, we believe that the Conservation Trust Fund represents a major advancement in conservation spending. The programs within the Trust Fund encourage active lifestyles, promote smart growth, and stimulate the economy by investing 

in communities across America. 

For fiscal year 2004, we support maintaining the integrity of and fully funding 

the Conservation Trust Fund at its dedicated $2.08 billion level. To make this possible, we respectfully urge you to provide sufficient 302(b) allocations to both the Interior and the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittees to allow them to provide full funding for portions of the Conservation Trust 

Fund within their jurisdiction without harming other important programs. 

We hope that you will join us by supporting the Conservation Trust Fund at its 

dedicated level, safeguarding the health and well being of America’s communities 

and preserving our natural, cultural, and historic resources. Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OCEAN CONSERVANCY

The Ocean Conservancy is pleased to share its views regarding the programs in 

the Department of the Interior’s budget that affect marine resources and requests 

that this statement be included in the record for the fiscal year 2004 Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 

The Ocean Conservancy (TOC) strives to be the world’s foremost advocate for the 

oceans. Through science-based advocacy, research, and public education, we inform, 

inspire, and empower people to speak and act for the oceans. TOC is the largest 

and oldest nonprofit conservation organization dedicated solely to protecting the marine environment. Headquartered in Washington DC, TOC has regional offices in 

Alaska, California, Florida, and Maine. 

CONSERVATION TRUST FUND

TOC supports full funding for the Conservation Trust Fund. We believe that the 

Conservation Trust Fund represents a major advancement in conservation spending 

and urge the Subcommittee to fully fund and maintain the integrity of the Conservation Trust Fund at its authorized level of $1.56 billion in fiscal year 2004. 
343

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Endangered Species Program 

Listing and Critical Habitat 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) continues to face a backlog of species needing listing and critical habitat designation. TOC respectfully requests the Subcommittee fund endangered species listing and critical habitat programs at $24 million in fiscal year 2004, $14.9 million above fiscal year 2003 enacted levels. 

Consultation Program 

Each year, FWS reviews more than 62,000 federal actions under Section 7 con- sultations. TOC requests that the Subcommittee increase funding by $8 million to 

$56 million in fiscal year 2004 to ensure timely completion of these consultations. 

Recovery Program 

TOC is extremely concerned about the Administration’s proposed $2.4 million cut 

to the endangered species recovery program. We appreciate the Subcommittee providing a modest increase in fiscal year 2003 and urge an additional increase be provided in fiscal year 2004. Within this increase, TOC respectfully requests the committee specifically earmark funds for the southern sea otter. 

The southern sea otter was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species 

Act in 1977. The current population has suffered significant declines in six out of 

the last seven years. Necropsy data indicates that nearly 40 percent of otters examined had an infection at the time of death. TOC respectfully requests $500,000 in 

fiscal year 2004 to produce an epidemiology plan, conduct a health assessment 

workshop, and support the scientific research recommended by the Southern Sea 

Otter Working Group. 

National Wildlife Refuge System—Coral Reef Conservation 

Coral reefs are rightly known as ‘‘the rainforests of the sea,’’ and are among the 

most complex and diverse ecosystems on earth. Coral reefs provide habitat to almost 

one third of marine fish species, serve as barriers to protect coastal areas, and provide an estimated $3 billion annually in economic benefits to the country from recreational tourism and fishing. Coral reefs are also extremely fragile and face serious 

threats from overutilization and pollution around the world. 

The Department of the Interior serves on the Interagency Coral Reef Task Force 

and is responsible for implementing the National Action Plan to Conserve Coral 

Reefs. Unfortunately, the Department’s budget is grossly inadequate to properly 

manage, monitor and protect the over two million acres of coral reefs under its jurisdiction. TOC respectfully requests an additional $1.5 million in fiscal year 2004 be 

directed to increase protection, monitoring and management of coral reefs within 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, including the refuges in the Florida Keys and 

newly established units at Palmyra and Kingman atolls. 

Manatee Law Enforcement 

TOC urges the Subcommittee to continue funding manatee law enforcement in fiscal year 2004. Heightened law enforcement efforts are necessary to protected the endangered Florida manatee and curtail motorboat caused mortalities. Watercraft 

mortalities represent the single largest identifiable cause of death for Florida 

manatees each year. Past funding has enhanced compliance with manatee protection speed zones and has increased the number of National Wildlife Refuge System 

officers patrolling Florida waters. While we support the Administration’s proposed 

increase of $500,000 we ask for an additional $500,000 to promote recovery and 

minimize human caused mortalities within federally designated manatee refuges 

and sanctuary areas. 

National Invasive Species Act—Ballast Technology Demonstration 

Nonindigenous species infestations degrade natural resources of virtually every 

U.S. waterway and coastal area. Free of natural predators, alien species which become established in our waters often out-compete native organisms, destroy habitat 

and alter the physical and chemical conditions in our coastal waters. Invasive species are regarded as a leading cause of diminished biodiversity and cost our economy 

millions of dollars each year. The leading vector of unintentional introductions of 

aquatic pest species is the discharge of ballast water by oceangoing vessels. he National Invasive Species Act (Public Law 104–332) authorizes $2.5 million for the 

FWS to eliminate this source of aquatic invasives. We appreciate the Subcommittee’s past support and urge the full $2.5 million be provided in fiscal year 2004 to 

help develop and demonstrate environmentally sound ballast water treatment technologies. 
344

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Buck Island Reef National Monument, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 

The Buck Island Monument has expanded in size from 880 acres to 18,135 marine 

acres, a twenty-fold growth. As a result, TOC respectfully requests an additional 

$1.0 million in funding in fiscal year 2004 for the Park Service to administer this 

ocean park; scientifically assess, monitor and protect its marine resources; and conduct outreach and education programs for its increased number of visitors. 

Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands 

TOC respectfully requests an additional $500,000 in funding in fiscal year 2004 

to administer this new monument; scientifically assess, monitor, and protect its marine resources; and conduct outreach and education programs. 

Channel Islands National Park 

TOC respectfully requests an additional $500,000 in funding in fiscal year 2004 

for the Channel Islands National Park. This funding is necessary for the Park to 

continue working with the State of California’s Department of Fish and Game and 

NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Program to protect Park resources, conduct a 

scientific assessment of the new marine reserves, and support education and outreach efforts for Park visitors. 

Additional funding should be also provided to improve the management and protection of special coral reef areas in Florida’s Dry Tortugas National Park and Biscayne National Park. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SERVICE

Coral Reef Conservation 

TOC respectfully requests $4.5 million in fiscal year 2004 for the U.S. Geological 

Survey to support research and monitoring of coral reefs, particularly in the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. Research and monitoring is needed to better understand the impacts 

of fishing on coral reefs, the causes of coral diseases, and the role of marine protected areas in coral reef conservation. 

National Water Quality Assessment Program 

Over the past 50 years, nitrogen and phosphorus inputs into U.S. waters from 

human activities on land have increased up to 20 times their previous levels, and 

the rate of increase is accelerating. This has had a number of adverse impacts on 

our coastal water quality. Algae blooms are depleting oxygen levels, killing fish and 

other aquatic organisms. Dead zones are increasing in size and quantity. 

At the present time we cannot effectively assess the extent of our water quality 

problems or the effectiveness of our programs because only 32 percent of our estuaries and 5 percent of our ocean waters are monitored. The National Water Quality 

Assessment Program (NWQAP) is one of the few federal programs charged with systematically monitoring the status of the nation’s water quality, evaluating trends, 

and assessing the sustainability of this critical resource. Data from NWQAP is absolutely essential if we are to make progress in reducing the impacts of excess nutrients in the marine environment. 

We greatly appreciate the Subcommittee’s rejecting the Administration’s proposed 

10 percent budget cut last year and request $66.8 million in fiscal year 2004, $3 

million above the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 request. 

Toxics Substances Hydrology Program 

The Toxic Substances Hydrology Program provides objective scientific information 

on the behavior of toxic substances in the nation’s hydrologic environments. The information is used to improve characterization and management of contaminated 

sites, to protect human and environmental health, and to reduce potential future 

contamination problems. The program is guided by reviews conducted by the National Research Council. We urge the committee to reject the Administration’s proposed $2.5 million cut to this program and restore funding in fiscal year 2004 to 

the fiscal year 2002 level of $13.9 million. 

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE

Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Moratoria 

Since 1981, Congress has included bill language in the Interior Appropriations 

legislation to protect sensitive coastal and marine regions from new offshore oil and 

gas leasing. Today the moratorium protects the east and west coasts of the United 

States, Alaska’s Bristol Bay, and parts of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida. 
345

TOC applauds the Subcommittee’s historic support of this language and strongly 

supports its continued inclusion in fiscal year 2004. 

Thank you for considering the funding needs of these programs. They are of the 

utmost importance to the stewardship of the nation’s living marine resources. We 

greatly appreciate your past support for these programs and your consideration of 

our fiscal year 2004 requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman, The Wilderness Society (TWS) would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the fiscal year 2004 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. On behalf of the 

more than 200,000 members and supporters of TWS, a 70-year-old organization 

dedicated to preserving America’s last remaining wild places, I provide below our 

fiscal year 2004 funding recommendations for a number of important conservation 

programs. Our top priorities include: 

—Continuation and full funding for the Interior portion of the Conservation Trust 

Fund (Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Fund) 

at $1.56 billion; —Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $450 million for Land and Water Conservation Fund federal land acquisition; and —Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $150 million for the Forest Legacy program. 

We also urge you to maintain the integrity of both the Conservation Trust Fund, 

and of the Land and Water Conservation Fund contained within it. 

Adequate funding for the programs discussed below is vital to protect America’s 

wild areas and environmental values, essential components of our American identity 

and our heritage. The land and our relationship with it infuse our history, our heroes, and our hearts. We hope to work with you to find the resolve and funding to 

protect those values that, like freedom itself, are a national birthright. 

CONSERVATION TRUST FUND

We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to provide full funding for its portion of the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) at $1.56 billion for fiscal year 2004. In one of 

its great bipartisan environmental achievements, the Congress established the Conservation Trust Fund in 2000 to address the chronic and severe underfunding of our 

nation’s conservation, recreation, wildlife, and cultural treasures’ needs. 

We thank the Subcommittee for providing the full dedicated for CTF programs 

under the jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for fiscal year 

2001 and fiscal year 2002. However, we are troubled by the drop of over $400 million in total CTF funding in the final fiscal year 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill, 

and by the cut of nearly $600 million in the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget. We 

strongly urge you to maintain Congress’ commitment to the CTF for fiscal year 2004 

by providing the dedicated funding level of $1.56 billion for Interior appropriations 

programs. 

Additionally, Congress should reject the proposal in the President’s budget to 

erode the fund’s original purposes by cutting funding for its authorized programs, 

such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund and State and Tribal Wildlife 

grants, while adding funding for new programs such as the poorly-defined Cooperative Conservation Initiative. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund.—Within the CTF, we urge the Subcommittee 

to reject the Administration’s proposal for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF), and instead to provide at least $650 million for LWCF’s original, authorized programs, including $450 million for Federal Land Acquisition. For decades, 

LWCF has been a premier tool to fund two things: federal land acquisition and a 

state assistance program. This year, in an attempt to make LWCF look full, the Administration shoehorns in numerous additional unrelated programs. This was done 

to mask cuts of over 50 percent in real land acquisition. Funding in the President’s 

Budget for National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service land acquisition is cut from a combined total of 

$429 million enacted in fiscal year 2002 to $187 million proposed for fiscal year 

2004. Americans have long relied on federal land acquisition to protect and complete 

its parks, forests and refuges, and the Administration’s cuts would result in smaller, 

more degraded lands and fewer recreation experiences—and the words ‘‘Land and 

Water Conservation Fund’’ would lose the meaning they have had since 1965. 

We specifically recommend LWCF federal land acquisition funding for 24 priority 

projects for fiscal year 2004, listed in Appendix A. Federal acquisition of these lands 
346

is necessary to address grave, immediate environmental threats with the potential 

for permanent damage, and to help protect and restore wildlands of significance (e.g. 

those with rare ecosystems, endangered species, and/or other special qualities). 

Forest Legacy.—We also recommend $150 million within the CTF for Forest Legacy. Authorized by Congress in 1990, the Forest Legacy program offers the opportunity for the federal government to work in partnership with states, local communities and private landowners to ensure that the multiple benefits found on forest 

lands—economic sustainability, wildlife habitat protection, and recreational opportunities—are secured for future generations. Since its inception, Forest Legacy has 

proven an extremely popular means to combat the loss of privately-owned 

timberlands to development, but is currently unable to meet national demand. In 

fiscal year 2003, states submitted funding requests totaling over $300 million in 

Forest Legacy funding, yet less than a third of this amount was appropriated. In 

addition, several other states are in the process of enrolling in the program in the 

near future, increasing the demand for funding. We specifically recommend Forest 

Legacy funding for 11 priority projects, listed in Table B below. 

ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

U.S. Forest Service.—Forest Service lands provide a vast array of popular recreational opportunities for millions of Americans. Outdoor recreation contributes 

more to the U.S. economy than any other use of the National Forest System, producing 31 times more jobs and 38 times more economic benefits than logging. Despite this, many important conservation programs that help maintain Forest Service 

lands’ recreational and ecological components are chronically underfunded, while 

programs that harm our national forests have traditionally received too much funding. We urge the Subcommittee to provide $76 million for Wildlife, Fish, Watershed 

and Atmospheric Sciences Research, approximately a $25 million increase over the 

fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget request. We also recommend $285 million for 

the Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Program, an increase of $30 million, as 

well as $200 million for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Program, 

an increase of $65 million. 

We are concerned that the proposed fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget’s for the 

Forest Service Research and Development account falls $8 million short of the $260 

million needed to prevent the further erosion of scientific capability within the Forest Service. Additionally, TWS strongly urges the Subcommittee to restore funding 

to the Rehabilitation and Restoration program at the fiscal year 2001 level of $142 

million; and to fund Deferred Maintenance and Infrastructure Improvement at the 

fiscal year 2002 level of $60 million. These two funds are critically important for 

mitigating environmental impacts after severe wildland fire events and for reducing 

the $8 billion road maintenance backlog. Finally, we request that you avoid endorsing the President’s proposal to reduce the number of wildland firefighting crews and 

engines by 53 percent, but instead at least double the wildland fire budget to prepare for a fire season similar to 2000 or 2002. 

Fish and Wildlife Service.—The National Wildlife Refuge System passes a significant milestone when it celebrates its 100th anniversary this year. Unfortunately, 

the Refuge system is suffering under a nearly $2 billion backlog in operations and 

maintenance. TWS gratefully acknowledges the Subcommittee’s faithful and consistent efforts to improve funding for the system, and we look forward to continuing 

our collaborative work with the Subcommitee towards additional improvements. We 

recommend $700 million for the Operations and Maintenance Program, an increase 

of $298 million above the President’s Budget, to carry out necessary repairs, fund 

new staff positions, and support development of Comprehensive Conservation Plans. 

National Park Service.—TWS is grateful for the President’s continued support of 

the National Resource Challenge, but an increase of $12.4 million is needed in this 

fifth and critical year of this program to bring its funding level to $80 million. We 

also recommend $6 million for the Soundscape program, to assist the National Park 

Service (NPS) in preserving and/or restoring the natural soundscapes within the 

parks. Additionally, as a member of the steering committee for Americans for Our 

National Parks, we recommend an additional $178 million over the enacted fiscal 

year 2003 levels in Park Operations to adequately protect the natural and cultural 

resources of the National Park system, bringing the total NPS Operations appropriation to $1.63 billion. 

In addition, TWS continues to recommend the formation of a Wilderness Branch 

within NPS, as the agency is the conservator of the largest total area of wilderness 

in the world. 

Bureau of Land Management.—The President’s fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes 

$43 million for the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), including an 
347

increase of $2.7 million for operations. This funding increase is critical to protect 

the cultural and ecological ‘‘crown jewels’’ of the BLM system: 15 National Monuments, 15 National Conservation Areas, hundreds of wilderness areas and wilderness study areas and numerous segments of Wild and Scenic Rivers and National 

and Scenic Trails. We also suggest the Subcommittee work with the agency and 

other interests to allocate funding for specific resource protection priorities at NLCS 

units. 

For BLM overall, TWS recommends an increase of $2 million for Resource Management Planning above the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget request of $48 million, to ensure effective public participation and outreach for new planning starts. 

We also endorse the Interior Department’s multi-agency Invasive Species Initiative, and urge the Subcommittee to provide the full $9 million increase for its programs proposed in the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget.

TABLE A.—RECOMMENDED FEDERAL LWCF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

[In millions of dollars] 

Agency State Project name Fiscal year 2004 

funding request 

BLM ........... Arizona ....................... Grand Canyon Parashant National Monument .................................. 1.2 

California ................... California Desert Wilderness Inholdings ............................................ 2 

Utah ........................... Grand Staircase Escalante/Calf Creek .............................................. 1 

USFS .......... Alaska ........................ Cube Cove—Admiralty Island ........................................................... 4 

Alaska ........................ Tongass—North Knig Slough ............................................................ .510 

Alaska ........................ Unuk River—Misty Fjords Nat. Monument ........................................ .400 

California ................... California Wilderness Inholdings ....................................................... 2.5 

Florida ........................ Pinhook Swamp/Suwanee Wildlife Corridor ....................................... 2.5 

Georgia ....................... Chattahoochee NF—Etowah River Basin .......................................... 1.2 

Georgia ....................... Chattahoochee NF—Springer Mountain ............................................ .700 

Georgia ....................... Chattahoochee NF—Thrower Tract .................................................... 1.25 

Idaho .......................... Payette NF—Thunder Mtn. Area—River of No Returns .................... 5 

Montana ..................... Gallatin National Forest—Taylor Fork ............................................... 2 

New Mex. .................... Gila Wilderness—Margaret Stewart Purchase .................................. .075 

New Mex. .................... Gila Wilderness—Middle Percha Purchase ....................................... .175 

New Mex. .................... Gila Wilderness—Spring Canyon Purchase ....................................... .340 

New Mex. .................... Kelly Purchase .................................................................................... .320 

N. Dakota ................... Griffin Ranch—Bullion Butte Roadless Area .................................... 1.5 

Vermont ...................... Vermont Long Trail Additions—Bolton Mt. ....................................... 0.20 

Washington ................ Cascade Crest .................................................................................... 8 

NPS ........... California ................... Mojave National Preserve Inholdings ................................................. 2 

California ................... Yosemite National Park—Hazel Green Property ................................ 1.2 

Texas .......................... Big Thicket National Preserve ............................................................ 6 

NPS/FWS .... Colorado ..................... Baca Ranch/Great Sand Dunes ......................................................... 12

TABLE B.—RECOMMENDED FOREST LEGACY PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

[In millions of dollars] 

State Project name 

Fiscal year 

2004 funding 

request 

Maine .............................................. Boundary Mountains to Nahmakanta ...................................................... 5 

Katahdin Forest ....................................................................................... 8 

Machias River .......................................................................................... 2 

Tumbledown Mtn./Mt. Blue/Bald Mtn. ..................................................... 4.3 

New Hampshire ............................... 13-Mile Woods ......................................................................................... 2 

New York ......................................... Moose River Corridor ............................................................................... 2 

Sable Highlands-Domtar ......................................................................... 5 

Tahawus-National Lead ........................................................................... 3.5 

Vermont ........................................... Chittenden County Uplands ..................................................................... 4.15 

Mallory Brook ........................................................................................... 0.25 

Northeast Kingdom IP Realty Lands ....................................................... 1.5 
348

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ANZA-BORREGO FOUNDATION

The Anza-Borrego Foundation thanks you for this opportunity to provide recommendations and comments on the fiscal year 2004 Department of the Interior 

and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. On behalf of the more than 1,000 members and supporters of the Anza-Borrego Foundation, an organization dedicated to 

the acquisition of lands for Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, the largest contiguous 

state park in the nature, I provide below our fiscal year 2004 funding recommendations for the Land and Water Conservation Fund projects and the Conservation 

Trust Fund. 

Our top priorities include: 

—Support of the allocation of $450 million to the federal LWCF land acquisition 

program in fiscal year 2004. 

—Support of funding the Conservation Trust Fund (commonly known as CARA 

‘‘Lite’’ or the Conservation Spending Category) at its dedicated amount of $2.08 

billion in fiscal year 2004. 

—We specifically recommend $4 million for the Bureau of Land Management to 

fund the California Desert Wilderness Inholdings and Mojave National Preserve 

Inholdings federal LWCF projects. (Please see below.) 

The Anza-Borrego Foundation (ABF) is a small regional land trust that acquires 

land through donation or purchase from willing sellers that benefits Anza-Borrego 

Desert State Park. ABF was first organized in 1967 at the request of the California 

State Parks Commission to deal with the issue of nearly 60,000 acres of inholdings 

in the 600,000-acre Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. In our 36 years of business, 

this small but mighty foundation has acquired and transferred to the Park over 

30,000 acres of inholdings and significant park resource lands. 

ABF and the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park have benefited from major funding 

from the stateside LWCF. In 2001, with the help of ABF, the Park acquired 2,675 

acres of the Lucky 5 Ranch. This acquisition links two state parks, Rancho 

Cuyamaca State Park and Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, thus creating a vital 

wildlife corridor between these two publicly held lands. Currently California State 

Parks is seeking additional stateside LWCF funding for the acquisition of 3,339 

acres of the Vallecito Ranch. Here again, this acquisition will link BLM lands to the 

south with existing state park land to the north. Both of these acquisitions possess 

untold natural and cultural resources including prime habitat for the federally listed 

endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep. 

Although our Foundation’s focus in land acquisition is local in scope and while 

this particular park has benefited only from the stateside LWCF sources, the AnzaBorrego Foundation actively participates as a partner in the broader land trust 

movement to protect California’s deserts. We enthusiastically support the need to 

fully fund the federal LWCF to benefit the following California projects. 

California Desert Wilderness Inholdings.—$2 million. 

In southern California, the BLM Desert District manages 65 individual wilderness 

areas throughout the California desert. These areas are as large as 200,000 acres 

and as small as 1,500 acres. Landscapes vary between ecosystems, ranging from 

mountainous high-altitude desert to lowland dry lakes and expansive sand dunes. 

The designated wilderness areas provide habitat to numerous species including bighorn sheep, bobcats, mountain lions, wild burros, gray foxes, fringe-toed lizards and 

the threatened desert tortoise. The Kingston Range Wilderness, home to the Banded 

Gila monster, is one of only five places in the world where this critter exists. 

Hundreds of land acquisition opportunities exist among the 65 wilderness areas 

the BLM manages. Due to the numerous important ecosystems and habitats of 

these areas, the BLM would like an annual appropriation of $2,000,000 to purchase 

critical inholdings. For every $1,000,000 allocated, 1,500 acres of land can be acquired and protected. New opportunities arise each year as landowners place their 

property on the market. Some properties have more urgent funding needs and some 

properties are of greater ecological significance. With an annual funding allocation 

for critical inholdings, the BLM will be able to acquire and protect the most sensitive lands in the wilderness areas each year. 

Mojave National Preserve Inholdings.—$2 million. 

The Mojave National Preserve, managed by the National Park Service, is a diverse ecosystem that contains sand dunes, Joshua tree forests, desert washes, dry 

lakes, and mile-high mountains. The landscape provides habitat to a wide variety 

of animals including bighorn sheep, coyotes, iguanas, wild burros, and the threatened desert tortoise. Numerous private inholdings exist within the National Preserve, some of which have proposed development by the owners in the past. As these 

inholdings become available for purchase it is essential that they be acquired for 

preservation to prevent development and critical habitat loss. The purchase of crit-
349

1 AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest, pulp, paperboard, and wood products 

industry. AF&PA represents approximately 200 member companies and related trade associations (whose memberships are in the thousands) which grow, harvest, and process wood and 

wood fiber; manufacture pulp, paper, and paperboard products from both virgin and recovered 

fiber; and produce solid wood products. 

ical inholdings within the Mojave National Preserve is an ongoing project and we 

request funding of $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2004. Funding will be used to secure 

the most urgent properties first. 

In conclusion, as an organization that was formed exclusively to acquire park 

inholdings, the Anza-Borrego Foundation is vitally aware of the significance of acquiring these inholdings to make ‘‘whole’’ these vital publicly owned lands. We, 

therefore, support and recommend the allocations of $450 million for federal LWCF 

land acquisition, and $2.08 billion for the Conservation Trust Fund and, specifically 

$4 million for the projects identified above. 

Thank you. 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FOREST AND PAPER ASSOCIATION

he American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) 1 supports sustainable forest 

management on all forest lands. Principles such as active management, long-term 

forest health and sustainability, and local level decision-making are vital components of AF&PA’s New Federal Forestry policy. Federally supported research and 

forest health programs are vital to achieving sustainable management on private 

forests. AF&PA supports Forest Service and Energy programs that will help achieve 

these objectives. 

Congress should address the nation’s forest health crisis through support for Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Forest Health Management, and Forest Health Research 

Initiatives. AF&PA considers the Forest Products program a vital means of promoting forest health and providing a stable supply of fiber for society. Priority research efforts include FIA; Forest Products, Utilization, and Process; Biobased Products and Bioenergy; Industries of the Future; and Systems Integration & Production 

Industrial Gasification programs. Following are specific funding level and program 

recommendations for fiscal year 2004: 

ENSURING LONG-TERM FOREST HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY

Our nation’s forestlands face a forest health crisis. Millions of acres of public and 

adjacent private forestland are at high risk to catastrophic wildfire, insect infestation, or disease. The President’s Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI), building on the 

National Fire Plan, will help reduce these threats and restore the health of our nation’s forests. The fiscal year 2004 budget needs to support these programs to improve forest health, reduce hazardous fuels, improve fire suppression efforts, and assist rural communities. Specifically, support is needed for: 

Hazardous Fuels Reduction.—AF&PA recommends $262.100 million for this program. Increased funding is needed for hazardous fuels reduction in order to protect 

resource values such as fish, wildlife, and water. There are significant treatment 

needs in all areas of the country and in all three condition classes. Regional allocations need to reflect these nationwide priorities. 

Rehabilitation and Restoration.—Rehabilitation and restoration work is critically 

important, and requires a dedicated funding source. AF&PA has serious concerns 

with the Forest Service’s proposal to shift funds from other programs, as this will 

adversely affect other important work. Projects within this budget should focus on 

protecting soil and water quality. 

Fire Suppression Operations.—Congress needs to promptly resolve the chronic 

problem of fire suppression costs exceeding available funds. While the President’s 

request of $604.580 million for fiscal year 2004 is a significant increase over the fiscal year 2003 budget of $417.964 million, it will prove to be insufficient if the nation 

experiences a future fire season like the ones in 2000 and 2002. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management.—AF&PA supports the President’s request of $134.794 million for this program, and seeks to ensure that important wildlife habitat and conservation programs are undertaken. The drawdown in the 

Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) fund to pay for wildfire suppression costs has a major impact on this and other programs. Approximately $170 million was borrowed from 

the KV Fund during the 2002 fire season; the Fund is now still owed a total of $433 

million. Failure to completely repay the KV Fund diminishes implementation of 
350

much-needed wildlife habitat, reforestation, TSI, and other conservation projects. In 

some regions, this adversely impacts non-essential KV projects, such as fish and 

wildlife programs that are already underfunded. 

Vegetation and Watershed Management.—AF&PA supports the President’s re- quest of $192.606 million for this program. This program should address the significant reforestation backlog, currently estimated at 838,066 acres. Reforestation accomplishments have steadily decreased while reforestation needs have increased 

since 1999 primarily due to wildfires. 

Forest Health Management.—AF&PA supports the President’s request of $82.019 

million for the overall Forest Health Management budget, but recommends an allocation of $44.963 million for Federal Lands and $37.056 million for Cooperative 

Lands. It is vitally important that programs to treat insects and disease be fully 

funded in order to protect both federal and adjacent private forests. AF&PA supports the concept behind the Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund, but recommends 

greater flexibility to address the forest health crisis. Pest suppression funds should 

not be limited to new pests or pathogens as proposed by the Administration. 

State Fire Assistance.—AF&PA recommends $58 million for the program under the ‘‘Wildland Fire Management, Fire Operations—Other’’ budget area, and $28 million under the ‘‘State and Private Forestry, Cooperative Fire Assistance’’ budget 

area. AF&PA supports these increases to provide States and communities with increased technical, financial, and strategic assistance to reduce hazardous fuels and 

enhance their capacity to implement fire protection activities. 

Watershed Forestry Assistance.—AF&PA supports the development of a new Watershed Forestry Assistance program, funded at $20 million. This program would assist States in monitoring Best Management Practices and would promote the beneficial relationship between good forest management and water quality. 

Community and Private Land Fire Assistance (CPLFA).—AF&PA recommends 

$15 million for this program, which is designed to aid landowners and communities 

in the prevention, preparation, and response to wildfire threats in the wildlandurban interface. This program directly supports the objectives of the National Fire 

Plan. 

ACTIVE FOREST MANAGEMENT

Active forest management is needed to ensure that the agency meets legislative 

mandates of promoting forest health and providing a stable supply of fiber for society. If the agency is to address urgent forest health needs and meet its responsibilities, funds must be provided for: 

Forest Products.—AF&PA recommends an increase to the total volume sold, to 3.0 

BBF, and funding of $404 million to support this program. Timber sales can be an 

important tool to achieve forest health objectives. Furthermore, the timber program 

is one of the few Forest Service programs that generates revenue. The Forest Service expects to achieve greater program efficiencies as a result of administrative actions now under consideration; increased timber volume is likely to result. Salvage 

sales are an important component of the timber sale program as a means to treat 

forests following insect outbreaks, fires, blow down, and other natural disasters. The 

Salvage Sale Fund balance is so low, however, that Forests are unable to take advantage of salvage opportunities. This fund is normally replenished with proceeds 

from salvage sales; however, Congress should appropriate funding to rebuild the capacity of this fund. AF&PA also recommends an increase in timber sale pipeline 

funding sufficient to provide for one-half of a year’s program in the pipeline (1.2 

BBF by the end of fiscal year 2004). Additionally, AF&PA recommends that the accomplishment measurement be changed from volume offered to volume sold. 

Land Management Planning.—AF&PA supports the President’s request of 

$70.868 million and urges the agency to expedite forest plan revisions in order to 

stay on schedule and to ensure consistent and reliable management. Revision of 

older plans is a high priority and it is critical that these funds not be diverted for 

other planning purposes. 

Deferred Maintenance and Infrastructure Improvement.—AF&PA concurs with the 

findings of the Program Assessment Rating Tool, which highlighted significant problems with strategic planning regarding deferred roads maintenance. Congress 

should require the Forest Service to develop a prioritization system and complete 

a backlog analysis within one year. 

RESEARCH

Research helps find innovative ways to promote and enhance forest sustainability 

and provides scientifically sound data that benefits both public and private forests. 

Congressional support is needed for: 
351

Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA).—AF&PA recommends $67.691 million for 

FIA, which is the target funding for fiscal year 2004 required to deliver the base 

federal FIA program. Funding for this program should include $14.8 million for 

State and Private Forestry, $6.2 million for National Forest System, and $46.691 

million for Forest and Rangeland Research. FIA provides the forestry community 

with timely and comprehensive forest data needed to make resource allocation decisions. The President’s request for fiscal year 2004 would severely hamper the program. The Forest Service should analyze the collected data annually in a consortium 

with State Foresters, universities, and other stakeholders, and make this data available through annual reports. 

Forest Products, Utilization, and Process.—AF&PA recommends $18.005 million 

for the program and suggests that the increase over the agency’s request be allocated to the Forest Products Lab for the Building Durability Test Facility ($2.5 million), the Coalition for Advanced Housing Research ($885,000) and core functions 

($1 million). To help promote forest sustainability, the Forest Products Lab and experiment stations conduct research focusing on the efficient and effective use of 

wood fiber. Unfortunately, funding for this research has suffered from steady erosion in budget over the last several years. Support is needed for the core functions 

of the research stations to address issues such as the use of small diameter wood 

and bioenergy production, and for the construction and operation of a Building Durability Test Facility at the Forest Products Lab to address mold and moisture 

issues. Funding is also needed for the Coalition for Advanced Housing Research for 

research on damage mitigation from natural disasters like floods, earthquakes and 

hurricanes. 

Biobased Products and Bioenergy.—AF&PA recommends $10 million for biobased 

products and bioenergy research, of which $1 million should be specifically appropriated for Agenda 2020. Biobased Products and Bioenergy research is needed to improve forest utilization, reduce U.S. reliance on oil, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Agenda 2020 plays a vital role in improving forest productivity; developing 

new bio-energy technologies with superior environmental performance; encouraging 

research in new forest-based materials and biobased products; and innovating new 

technologies for wood and wood composite materials. 

Forest Health Research Initiatives.—AF&PA supports the President’s proposed increases to the Forest Service Research and Rangeland Research budget for new 

science and technologies, including the research targeted at invasive species and the 

Healthy Forests Initiative. AF&PA looks forward to working with Congress to identify priority research needs. 

Industries of the Future.—The forest product industry’s Agenda 2020 program has 

a proven track record for pre-competitive R&D. Working with National Labs, universities, and private sector concerns, the Agenda 2020 program undertakes research 

to improve the energy efficiencies of the wood and paper products sectors. Unfortunately, the Administration has proposed a 54 percent reduction in this program. We 

strongly urge the committee to fund these programs at a continuing level of $10.5 

million for fiscal year 2004. 

Systems Integration & Production Industrial Gasification.—The forest products industry is engaged in the fifth year of a pre-competitive research program with DOE 

to develop power generation by gasifying pulping liquor and wood residuals. This 

new technology has the potential to produce a net 22 gigawatts of power from a renewable fuel source, displacing as much as 100 million barrels of oil per year. The 

DOE budget stops this research program mid-stream. AF&PA recommends that this 

funding level be restored to the fiscal year 2003 level of $14.68 million. 

CONCLUSION

AF&PA appreciates the chance to provide the Subcommittee with testimony regarding fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Forest Service. If implemented, the 

funding levels proposed for the programs listed above will help promote sustainable 

management and forest health on public and private lands. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION

The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) recommends the following as the 

Subcommittee considers appropriations for fiscal year 2004. The American 

Sportfishing Association is a non-profit trade association whose 555 members include fishing tackle manufacturers, sport fishing retailers, boat builders, state fish 

and wildlife agencies, and the outdoor media. 

The ASA makes these recommendations on the basis of briefings with agency staff 

and from years of experience with fisheries management in this Nation. It is impor-
352

tant to note that sportfishing provides $116 billion in economic output to the economy of the United States each year. 

Forest Service 

The American Sportfishing Association strongly objects to the Forest Service 

budget structure as it relates to fisheries. Fusion of budget line items make it impossible to track specific expenditures and does not promote accountability to industry and state partners, the public, or Congress. ASA recommends the budget return 

to individual line items for each of the following areas: (1) fish; (2) wildlife; (3) vegetation; (4) and threatened and endangered species habitat management. 

ASA supports the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget of $134.8 million for Wildlife 

and Fisheries Habitat Management Program, but is concerned that this represents 

no real dollar increase for fiscal year 2004. 

Given a healthy fishery resource, recreational anglers and others in local communities depend on forest roads to access fishing and other related recreational areas. 

Many of these roads and bridges are deteriorating or unsafe, requiring maintenance 

to keep them usable and assure they do not contribute to poor water quality. The 

ASA supports the increase in the fiscal year 2004 budget for the roads, trails, and 

facilities program but requests an additional $50 million in funding for fiscal year 

2004. The Forest Service has a $10 billion road maintenance backlog. If this backlog 

were eliminated, annual road maintenance needs would continue to be a minimum 

of $152 million annually. 

National Park Service 

The ASA supports the President’s requested funding of $12.0 million for the Cooperative Conservation Initiative (CCI) under the Challenge Cost Share program. This 

initiative’s goals to restore, conserve, and enhance natural resources is vital to ensuring quality and longevity of parks natural resources. In addition, we support the 

$10 million funding level for the traditional Land and Water Conservation Fund, 

but recommend the funds are dispersed through consultation with the states. 

The Natural Resources Challenge, a program intended to protect native species 

and habitat through resource management and performance measures, has yet to 

provide evidence of success. Without proper evidence that this program is accomplishing the original set of goals and objectives, the American Sportfishing Association cannot support funding of the National Resource Challenge program. Until a 

clear status of proposals can be presented and specific natural resources information 

needs are determined we no longer support funding. 

The ASA is concerned with the structure and use of Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESU). The Biological Resources Division (BRD) of USGS is the primary 

research arm of the Department of the Interior and the CESUs create competition 

between these research unit systems. As we understand it, the CESUs purpose is 

to coordinate and complete research for the Park Service with other federal and 

state agencies in areas adjacent to national parks. CESU’s activities lead to a duplication of expenditures and efforts from federal and state agencies when research 

projects are competing for the same government funding. The ASA urges Congress 

to strictly define the need for CESUs and express the difference between these 

study units and the longstanding efforts of the BRD Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Units of USGS. Unless a distinction can be made, the monies for this program should be transferred from the CESUs to the Biological Resources Division. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

The BLM manages 117,000 miles of fishable streams, 17,000 miles of anadromous 

fish habitat, and 3 million acres of fishable lakes and reservoirs which provide recreational anglers with high quality fishing opportunities, generating $390 million 

annually in economic benefits. In order to manage these resources, the Administration is requesting $11.87 million in fiscal year 2004 for Fisheries Management. This 

represents a program increase of $200,000 from the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget, 

but remains $250,000 below the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget. The ASA strongly 

encourages Congress to increase BLM’s fisheries budget by an additional $1 million. 

The ASA is extremely concerned that at current staffing levels, the Bureau’s staff 

will be unable to meet its statutory requirements. A recent workforce evaluation 

showed that with its current level of staffing in fisheries, the BLM is staffed at only 

50 percent of its 1993 identified needs. Nowhere in the fiscal year 2004 budget request are these staffing deficiencies addressed. Already, approximately 30 percent 

of existing wildlife and fisheries staff time is being directed to energy-related functions. The ASA strongly supports hiring additional fish and wildlife staff to address 

these critical program areas in the context of addressing the Nation’s Energy Policy, 

but recommends these positions be directly funded from the energy account, rather 
353

than extracted from the existing base Wildlife Management, Fisheries Management 

or Threatened or Endangered Species Program budgets. 

The BLM manages over 23 million acres of land classified as riparian or wetland. 

These areas provide vital habitat components for hundreds of fish and wildlife species, filter sediment from water, afford greater water storage capacity, dissipate 

flood waters and offer excellent recreational opportunities. For these reasons and 

more, the ASA supports BLM efforts in riparian areas, but remains concerned that 

the requested $21.97 million is insufficient to meet all of the identified needs. The 

ASA requests that Congress add $3 million to this riparian program, and urges 

BLM to continue its coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies in order to 

achieve optimal program results. The ASA understands the fiscal year 2004 budget request for BLM includes $1 

million to conduct long-term, large-scale, ‘‘cumulative effects’’ resource monitoring. 

We support this effort and the manner in which these fiscal resources are included 

in the appropriate programs including wildlife management; fisheries management; 

soil, air and water; and cultural resources. Conversely, BLM is proposing $500,000 

to expand resource monitoring to increase its ability to assess the cumulative impact 

of oil and gas development, especially on cultural resources and species-at-risk. This 

effort is targeted at states where coalbed natural gas development is occurring. 

However in this instance, the funding is contained in the oil and gas account. The 

ASA supports this monitoring, but recommends the fiscal resources to conduct this 

work be allocated within the appropriate program area budget where biological and 

cultural resource expertise exists. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

The American Sportfishing Association is pleased with the overall requested increases for the fiscal year 2004 budget. Despite these increases, there are several 

reductions that will cut necessary programs and further delay conservation efforts. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) is a cooperative program that matches at least 1:1 in non-federal funds, is incentive based and is one 

of the most successful programs for restoring wetlands for fish and wildlife habitat. 

With more than 2,000 partners including communities, governments, nonprofit organizations, States, and academia involved in this program, the ASA strongly urges 

Congress to appropriate the full $55 million as authorized for 2004. 

The ASA is pleased with the requested increase of $25.2 million for operations 

and maintenance of the National Wildlife Refuge System. With a maintenance backlog of $663 million this funding can only begin to address the needs for maximum 

operation of the Service’s refuges. The ASA also recommends continued support of 

the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) recommendations for 

eliminating the backlog of the Refuge Operations and Maintenance by recommending future budget requests. 

The ASA is pleased with the increase in funding for the Fisheries Program’s ‘‘Vision for the Future’’ developed by partners and States. The ASA supports the Presidents request for $103.6 million for this program, which is an increase of $9.0 million from fiscal year 2003. Although we support this increase there are certain factors within the Fisheries Program with which the ASA is concerned. We support an 

increase of $5.0 million for hatchery operations, but a significant hatchery purpose 

is to produce fish for mitigation and funding for this is absent from the proposal. 

There is a statutory responsibility to produce fish as mitigation for Federal water 

projects. In support of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council’s recommendations for the Service’s Fisheries Program, the ASA urges Congress to provide an additional $5.0 million for the Federal fishery mitigation programs conducted by the Service. 

The ASA supports the proposed increase of $3.0 million for hatchery maintenance 

repairs and improvements on aging infrastructures. However, the ASA is concerned 

about the $300 million backlog of hatchery maintenance. We urge Congress to allocate an additional $7.0 million to hatchery maintenance for the fiscal year 2004 

budget, and we ask Congress to support the President’s additional request of $1.0 

million to combat aquatic nuisance species. 

The American Sportfishing Association urges Congress to support Fisheries Program efforts to restore fish passage for important recreational fisheries. This can be 

accomplished by Congress appropriating an additional $3.0 million for elimination 

of barriers to allow fish passage and fish migration nationwide. This program is critical to the health of our nations waters and to keep fish habitat as close to its natural state as possible. 

The ASA is concerned for the continuation of the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission Migratory Fish Restoration Program’s efforts to restore migratory 

fish in the four state basin of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and 
354

Vermont. The ASA requests an additional $770,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

for this program. 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program has worked with 28,700 private landowners in restoration efforts for over 1,790,220 acres across the United States. The 

ASA supports the President’s increase of $9.6 million, but asks Congress to add an 

additional $4.0 million to enhance the Coastal program which has also made significant improvements to wetlands and fishery habitats. 

One important aspect of the Service is to control invasive non-native species. This 

program needs to be a priority within the Service. The ASA recommends an additional $10 million for the Service’s invasive species control programs. This problem 

is not only domestic but also international and requires additional funding to ensure 

the survival of native species. 

No single agency has the responsibility to obtain the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for aquatic drugs and chemicals necessary to run federal, state and 

private hatcheries. To meet this critical need, the ASA urges Congress to make 

available $450,000 in new funds to be added to the Service’s Aquatic Animal Drug 

Approval Partnership program. This program would complete this important process 

that state fish and wildlife agencies have already provided substantial funding. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB

On behalf of the Appalachian Mountain Club’s 90,000 members, thank you for the 

opportunity to provide comments on the fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations 

Bill. Founded in 1876, the AMC is America’s oldest conservation and recreation organization, with chapters from Maine to Washington D.C. AMC is dedicated to protecting critical resources throughout our region, including the Northern Forest and 

the Central Appalachian Highlands. In addition, our staff and volunteers contribute 

countless hours to provide safe outdoor recreation opportunities for the public in 

places like the White Mountain National Forest, Acadia National Park, the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, and the Appalachian Trail, not to mention many state parks and forests. As you will see by our priorities below, we place 

a premium on those programs that foster partnerships and leverage the substantial 

local, state, and private efforts in our region. 

On behalf of the Appalachian Mountain Club I am submitting testimony in strong 

support of: —An increase in funding for the Forest Legacy Program to at least $150 million, 

—Full funding ($900 million) of the state and federal components of the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund, 

—Full funding ($2.08 billion) for the Conservation Trust Fund (Title VIII), 

—An increase in funding to the Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance Program to $15 million, and 

—Priority consideration to projects in the Northern Forest and Central Appalachian Highlands. 

REGIONAL PRIORITIES

The Northern Forest 

Encompassing 26 million acres across Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New 

York, the Northern Forest is the largest contiguous forest area east of the Mississippi. Its rugged mountains, legendary rivers, extensive array of lakes and ponds, 

and endless woodlands lie within a day’s drive of 70 million people. The forest’s capacity to grow quality timber for high-value manufacturing; to lure visitors with 

breathtaking displays of natural beauty; and to showcase a rich cultural and historical tradition are the cornerstones on which to build a robust regional economy. 

In response to growing anxieties about development, land stewardship, traditional 

access, and community sustainability, local businesses and community leaders, 

elected officials, and conservation organizations are working together to protect the 

important places and traditional values in the Northern Forest. Private initiative 

has been tremendous. In the last ten years, the region has witnessed some of America’s most exciting and innovative conservation partnerships, protecting more than 

2.4 million acres through a combination of state, federal, local and private investments of $301 million. Our job in this region is not done, and for fiscal year 2004, 

$38 million in needs from the Forest Legacy Program have been identified. 

Central Appalachian Highlands 

The AMC also supports efforts to protect the critical treasures of the Central Appalachian Highlands of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. This 

surprising region of beauty, water and life lies within a two hour drive of 20 million 
355

people and supplies quality drinking water to over 11 million residents of the New 

York metropolitan area. The Highlands provide abundant outdoor recreation opportunities and critical wildlife habitat in one of the most densely populated regions 

of the country. 

The recent release of the U.S. Forest Service report on the Highlands confirmed 

what locals have long understood: these water-rich forests are the lifeblood of our 

region, and they will be lost soon without further land conservation. The report reaffirms the ‘‘national significance’’ and threatened nature of the Highlands region, including the loss of over 5,000 acres of open space annually. The report identified 

100,000 acres of high-value conservation lands that are imminently threatened by 

development in the NY–NJ Highlands. Given the pace of development and high cost 

of land in the Highlands, a significant federal investment and partnership in the 

region is needed to secure its future. The Highlands Coalition has identified nearly 

$16 million in funding needs through the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2004 

in the NY & NJ Highlands alone. Full funding of the Land & Water Conservation 

Fund’s state and federal programs would provide an additional source of funding. 

As federal land units are scarce in the Highlands region, we also support innovative 

conservation partnerships between the states and federal government, building 

upon the successful model to preserve Sterling Forest in New York. 

PROGRAM PRIORITIES

Forest Legacy Program (FLP)—$150 million 

With the program on a track to serve as many as 43 states within a year, the 

rest of the country is quickly finding out what the Northeast has known for decades: 

that the Forest Legacy Program is an excellent tool for leveraging federal, state, 

local, and private resources. States have a chance to opt into the program, and every 

project requires at least a 25 percent match. Private landowners are comfortable 

with the program’s market-based approach; in fact, Forest Legacy easements give 

landowners the support they need to continue traditional uses of the land, including 

forestry. At the same time, the public enjoys the many benefits that Forest Legacy 

promotes, including scenic beauty, clean water, outdoor recreation and wildlife. Because of the program’s impressive track record of creating win-win conservation solutions, this committee has steadily increased Forest Legacy funding to $68.3 million in fiscal year 2003. In light of the overwhelming and expanding demand for this 

program, the AMC strongly encourages this committee to continue the momentum 

behind Forest Legacy by raising the funding level in fiscal year 2004 to at least 

$150 million. 

Forest Legacy Project Requests 

—Machias River, Maine—$2 million 

—Tumbledown/Mt. Blue, Maine—$4.3 million 

—Katahdin Forest, Maine—$8 million 

—Boundary Mountains to Nahmakanta, Maine—$5 million 

—Pillsbury-Sunapee, New Hampshire—$2.5 million 

—Thirteeen Mile Woods II, New Hampshire—$1.2 million 

—Moose Mountain, New Hampshire—$1 million 

—Trout Pond, New Hampshire—$1 million 

—Chittenden County Uplands, Vermont—$4.15 million 

—Monadnock Mtn./Victory Basin, Vermont—$1.5 million 

—Mallory Brook, Vermont—$250,000

—Sable Highlands, New York—$5 million 

—Moose River Corridor, New York—$2 million 

—Tehawus-National Lead, New York—$3.5 million 

—Highlands/Taconics region (including Pochuck Mountain and Torne Valley), 

New York—$8 million 

—Upper Delaware River Watershed, New Jersey—$8 million 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)—$900 million 

As our nation’s conservation cornerstone, LWCF is critical to the future of many 

places that Americans treasure. From playgrounds and ball fields, to biking paths 

and hiking trails, national parks, refuges and forests, LWCF has been the key to 

providing places for all Americans to recreate and get outdoors. Since its inception, 

LWCF has helped communities acquire nearly seven million acres of parkland, 

water resources, and open space. We strongly urge the subcommittee to fully fund 

LWCF at $900 million in fiscal year 2004. 
356

1Conservation Trust Fund—$2.8 billion 

At the close of the 106th Congress, the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee established the Conservation Trust Fund (Title VIII). Through an amendment to the 

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, the new fund was 

fenced off in a separate ‘‘conservation spending’’ budget category that set aside a 

total of $12 billion in increased funding over a six-year period. The Conservation 

Trust Fund is still subject to annual appropriations. We applaud the creation of this 

budget category and ask that you honor this commitment by providing the full level 

of $2.08 billion for the Conservation Trust Fund in fiscal year 2004. 

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA)—$15 million 

Through technical assistance to build trails, restore rivers, and establish open 

space, RTCA fosters walkable communities for healthier lifestyles. RTCA, one of the 

National Park Service’s smallest programs, delivers enormous returns by building 

partnerships between state and local interests and strengthening communities. 

RTCA has been recognized by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as an 

effective program for improving community health by increasing the opportunities 

for readily available opportunities for outdoor physical activities. For fiscal year 

2004, we urge you to increase funding for this innovative program to $15 million. 

In Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, as we look forward, we are faced with an historic opportunity to 

conserve places of extraordinary natural and public value. To successfully meet this 

challenge, conservation solutions will depend on creative partnerships between government, businesses and the non-profit community. Federal funds, leadership and 

expertise are critical components of this partnership. We urge Congress to continue 

to take up this challenge of working with the people of the Appalachian region to 

protect its irreplaceable resources. On behalf of the Appalachian Mountain Club, I 

would like to thank the chairman and members of the subcommittee for considering 

our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE APPALACHIAN TRAIL CONFERENCE

I am writing, in behalf of the Appalachian Trail Conference, to request the Subcommittee’s consideration of an fiscal year 2004 appropriation from the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund in an amount totaling $8.3 million for three separate line 

items for the USDA Forest Service—a ‘‘Georgia Mountains’’ project ($1 million), a 

‘‘Tennessee Mountains’’ project ($5.3 million), and a ‘‘Virginia Mountains’’ project ($2 

million). Each of those project areas includes parcels relevant to the Appalachian 

National Scenic Trail. In the case of the Tennessee Mountains project and the Virginia Mountains project, the request also includes other parcels that, while not proximate to the Appalachian Trail, nevertheless represent critical in-holdings within 

the proclamation boundaries of the affected forests (Cherokee and George Washington/Jefferson, respectively). Permit me to further describe the basis for our request. 

The Appalachian Trail was initially established between 1923 and 1937 and has 

been maintained as a continuous long-distance footpath since that time. In 1968, 

with the passage of the National Trails System Act, the Appalachian Trail was designated as the nation’s first national scenic trail. The act also authorized state and 

federal land acquisition to establish a permanent route and protective corridor or 

greenway along the 14-state, 2,171-mile route of the trail. Since 1978, with strong 

bipartisan support within the Congress, the two affected federal agencies—the National Park Service and the USDA Forest Service—have made remarkable progress 

in their respective Appalachian Trail land-acquisition programs. Indeed, those programs are now 99-percent complete. In the case of the National Park Service, the 

agency has acquired more than 108,200 acres of land, affecting more than 2,600 parcels in eleven states, and has protected more than 618 miles of the footpath. In the 

case of the USDA Forest Service, the agency has acquired more than 55,890 acres, 

affecting more than 675 parcels in the eight national forests crossed by the trail, 

and protected 149 miles of the footpath. Together, those programs represent perhaps 

the most successful land-acquisition programs in the history of those two agencies. 

At this point in the evolution of those two programs, our expectation is that the 

National Park Service will complete its program, possibly by the end of this fiscal 

year, with prior-year appropriations. However, in the case of the Forest Service, indications are that additional appropriations will be necessary to complete that agency’s Appalachian Trail land-acquisition inventory, which includes about 70 parcels, 

affecting about 4,000 acres and about five miles of the footpath in the states of 
357

Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. In those states, the agency has 

been impacted by significant escalation in land values, particularly in the past five 

years. As a result, our current best estimate of funding requirements to complete 

the Appalachian Trail program is approximately $5.5 million. Slightly more than 

one-half ($3 million) of that remaining need is reflected in the above-referenced request for fiscal year 2004. Georgia Mountains Project ($1 million).—We are requesting an fiscal year 2004 appropriation of $1 million for the so-called Springer Mountain (Glover/Little) parcel 

in the Chattahoochee National Forest. This request is consistent with the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request and represents a second-phase acquisition, 

building on an earlier appropriation in fiscal year 2003, for acquisition of this key 

in-holding in that forest. That tract is a highly scenic parcel in the foreground vista 

of Springer Mountain, the southern terminus of the Appalachian Trail and the 

jumping-off point for thousands of would-be ‘‘thru-hikers’’ who, each year, set out 

to hike the full length of the Appalachian Trail in one season. Due to estate issues, 

our understanding is that the parcel must be acquired this year. Tennessee Mountains Project ($5.3 million).—Our request includes a second-phase 

acquisition of approximately 3,400 acres of the so-called Rocky Fork tract—a 10,000-

acre in-holding in the Cherokee National Forest. The first-phase acquisition benefited from an appropriation in fiscal year 2003 and will affect about 1.5 miles of the 

Appalachian Trail. The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request includes 

$3.5 million for the second-phase Rocky Fork acquisition. However, the Appalachian 

Trail Conference is requesting additional appropriations in order to permit other acquisitions in the forest, including several key in-holdings—affecting approximately 

250 acres ($325,000)—in the Highlands of Roan area, as well as nine in-holdings—

affecting approximately 450 acres ($1 million)—along the 220-mile route of the Appalachian Trail through that forest. 

Virginia Mountains Project ($2 million).—Our request for the two Virginia forests 

(Jefferson and George Washington) includes several components. One-half of the request ($1 million) is for the acquisition on an opportunity, willing-seller basis, of as 

many as nine parcels, affecting approximately 800 acres, that border the Appalachian Trail. The balance of the request would provide, again on an opportunity/

willing-seller basis, for the acquisition of in-holding parcels in three areas of the Jefferson National Forest: the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area, a number of 

parcels bordering the Pine Mountain Trail near the Virginia/Kentucky border, and 

the so-called Rocky Hollow Cave property, which provides critical habitat for the endangered Indiana bat. Although the estimate costs for land acquisition related to 

those three areas exceeds $2 million, we are requesting only one-half that amount 

in fiscal year 2004. 

More detailed descriptions of the three project areas are provided in separate attachments. 

The Appalachian Trail Conference is a private, nonprofit, educational organization 

established in 1925 to coordinate the design, construction, and maintenance of the 

Appalachian Trail, to conserve adjacent lands, and to provide educational opportunities for trail visitors who now number in the millions each year. The Conference has 

a membership of 33,000 individuals and also serves as a federation of 31 affiliated 

hiking and outing clubs throughout the eastern United States that maintain an assigned segment of the Appalachian Trail. In fiscal year 2002, more than 4,700 citizen volunteers from those clubs contributed more than 184,000 hours toward the 

construction and maintenance of the trail footpath, its system of overnight shelters 

and campsites, and in education and outreach to its visitors. 

Thank you for considering our fiscal year 2004 appropriations request and for the 

steadfast support of the Subcommittee over many years.

Attachments

VIRGINIA MOUNTAINS

State: Virginia 

Region/Forest: Region 8, George Washington and Jefferson National Forests 

Congressional District/Representatives: 

6th District, Rep. Goodlatte 

9th District, Rep. Boucher 

Senators Allen and Warner

APPROPRIATION HISTORY 

Appropriations received: 1989–2002 ................................................................................................................... 1 $4,321,179
358

APPROPRIATION HISTORY—Continued

Purchased through fiscal year 2002: Acres ........................................................................................................ 6,209

Appropriated 2003 ............................................................................................................................................... ........................

2004 Administration request ............................................................................................................................... ........................

2004 Conservation request .................................................................................................................................. $2,000,000

Acres ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,650

1 Dollar amount indicated in appropriations history for the Forest includes reprogrammed money and money received from the Emergency 

Inholding appropriation 

The proposed fiscal year 2004 appropriation is intended to address on an opportunity-purchase basis a number of land-acquisition needs in the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area, as well as for protection of endangered species habitat at 

Rocky Hollow Cave, and right-of-way needs for the Pine Mountain Trail through the 

Jefferson National Forest. Although those needs exceed the $1 million requested, an 

appropriation in that amount should permit acquisition of key tracts in any and perhaps all of those areas. An additional $1 million is requested to acquire tracts for 

the Applachian National Scenic Trail corridor across the George Washington and 

Jefferson National Forests. 

Mount Rogers National Recreation Area ($1,000,000).—Six parcels, with an esti- mated value of $1,083,000, have been identified as high-priority acquisitions within 

the Mt. Rogers NRA. The Mount Rogers National Recreation Area is of exceptional 

biological interest because of the number of organisms that occur nowhere else in 

the state, most of them associated with elevations above 4,000 feet. Some represent 

northern forms that extend southward along the higher elevations of the Appalachians, but the majority are species endemic to the southern Appalachians that extend 

no farther than Mount Rogers. 

Acquisition of the tracts would result in protection of views in the NRA, securing 

endangered species habitat, provide for continued and expanded recreational use in 

the Mt. Rogers area, and improve visitor access. The properties would also improve 

Forest Service management by decreasing boundary maintenance, reducing the potential for encroachments, and by consolidating ownership. 

These acquisitions are of national concern because of the use that the Mount Rogers NRA is receiving. The NRA is within a day’s drive of more than 100 million people. Last year, it is estimated that more than one million people visited the NRA. 

Equestrian use, mountain biking, angling, and hiking are very popular, but concentration of these uses promotes overcrowding and resource damage. The acquisition of these tracts would enable completion of additional trail systems to spread 

the visitor use over a larger area. 

All six tracts are within the proclamation boundary of the Jefferson National Forest and are within the Mount Rogers National Recreation Area. They also are identified for acquisition in the Forest’s Land Adjustment Plan and acquisition is consistent with existing Jefferson Forest Plan direction to acquire lands that facilitate 

consolidation of National Forest ownership and enhance wilderness and other resource values such as key recreational tracts and habitat for endangered species. 

All of these tracts have willing sellers. There are no known health or safety concerns with any of the seven tracts, nor are there any known hazardous materials 

present. 

If the Forest Service is not able to purchase these tracts, in all likelihood they 

will be sold to private investors. The trend in these areas is to subdivide property 

into recreational and residential home sites. Should this occur, it will become increasingly difficult to protect the NRA, the trails, and endangered species habitat. 

Descriptions of these properties follow. 

The Craig tract is located in the NRA and is a 128± acre tract that is retangular 

in shape and adjoins National Forest on three sides. The owner of this tract is a 

willing seller and has recently contacted the Forest Service regarding his interest 

in selling the property. Acquisition will eliminate a possible request for legal access 

across National Forest. There is no need for additional infrastructure to make this 

tract safe and usable by the general public if acquired. The interest to be acquired 

is fee simple with no reservations. 

The 40-acre Zachary property adjoins the Lewis Fork Wilderness and is a complete inholding within the Forest and NRA. Acquisition of this tract would enable 

the closure of a road, which has been a law-enforcement problem involving illegal 

use of the wilderness. 

In addition to the Craig and Zachary tracts, there are four other tracts on the 

NRA identified for acquisition at this time. The 30-acre James property, the 40-acre 

Dixon Lumber tract, the 228-acre Andrews property, and the 220-acre Jennings 

tract. Acquisition of these tracts would provide ecosystem protection and consolida-
359

tion, preservation of historic and prehistoric artifacts, and would protect the unique 

plant and animal diversity of the Mount Rogers NRA. Rocky Hollow Cave ($100,000).—Acquisition of this 285-acre property would permanently protect a known bat cave for the Indiana bat, an endangered species. It 

was noted after a visit to the cave in 1998 that ‘‘Rocky Hollow Cave has the best 

potential for large-scale repopulation of nay of the 13 most important Indiana bat 

caves and mines in Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia.’’ Attempts to protect the cave through acquisition and by gating have been made by 

the Forest Service, The Nature Conservancy, and the Virginia Department of Game 

and Inland Fisheries throughout the past 20 years. In addition to those agencies 

and organizations, this project also is supported by the American Cave Conservation 

Association and Bat Conservation International. 

Pine Mountain Trail Tracts ($915,000).—A variety of tracts, affecting a total of 

2,612 acres are required to establish a right-of-way for the Pine Mountain Trail 

across the Jefferson National Forest. The Pine Mountain Trail is located along the 

crest of Pine Mountain, the highest point in Kentucky and the geological break between the ridge and valley and Cumberland Plateau geological provinces. Approximately 27 miles of trail currently are constructed within the proclamation boundaries of the Jefferson National Forest. However, the entire trail, as planned, would 

extend for 110 miles along the crest of Pine Mountain from Breaks Interstate Park 

on the Virginia/Kentucky border to Pine Mountain State Park in Kentucky. An additional ten miles of trail would extend from Pine Mountain State Park to Cumberland Gap National Park. Also, the state of Tennessee is actively constructing 140 

miles of trail that would extend from Chattanooga, Tennessee to Cumberland Gap 

National Park. Proposed acquisitions are intended to provide easements or fee-simple ownership for a right-of-way along approximately nine miles of the trail presently situated on private lands between Skeggs Gap and Pound Gap. Appalachian National Scenic Trail ($1,000,000).—The Appalachian National Scenic Trail (A.T.) is a public footpath through 14 states across 2,169 miles of spectacular Appalachian Mountain ridgelines from Maine to Georgia. Management of the 

A.T. is a partnership between the Forest Service, National Park Service, Appalachian Trail Conference (ATC), and local trail-maintaining clubs. This partnership 

has become a model for partnerships between governmental agencies and private 

groups. The local hiking clubs are made up of a small army of volunteers dedicated 

to the maintenance and protection of the A.T. 

With the passage of the 1968 National Trails System Act, and 1978 amendments 

to that act, funds were authorized to provide a permanent, protected corridor along 

the entire trail route. The Congress has continually supported the acquisition of 

land for the protection of the A.T. The Forest Service, National Park Service and 

the Appalachian Trail Conference have worked in partnership to complete the trail 

acquisition project. Overall, about 99 percent of the entire A.T. corridor from Georgia to Maine now is protected or in public ownership. Corridor protection within the 

Jefferson and George Washington national forest boundaries also is very close to 

completion: Since 1978, the Forest Service has acquired nearly 200 tracts and more 

than 15,500 acres along the trail within the two forests. Indeed, only nine parcels, 

totaling 814 acres, remain to be acquired, at an estimated cost of $1.2 million. 

In the New River/Pearisburg area near the Virginia/West Virginia state line, an 

environmental assessment is nearing completion that will determine the preferred 

route for the trail to eliminate road-walking along busy Route 460 and to provide 

greater physical separation between the footpath and the adjacent Celanese industrial complex there. Additional lands (estimated at 170 acres, more or less) will be 

acquired on a willing-seller basis from the Celanese corporation. 

At the Big Walker farm in the Nebo Valley of Bland County, additional land acquisition is necessary to supplement the very narrow right-of-way interests presently in national forest ownership. This area is characterized by wide-open and 

sweeping views of the pastoral landscapes unique to southwest Virginia, and additional public ownership (140 acres) is warranted in order to preserve that scenic and 

agricultural character. 

The 34-acre Abbot tract is adjacent to the A.T. corridor below the popular Dragon’s Tooth area in Craig County. The tract is within a prominent A.T. viewshed and 

adjoins a Forest Service parking lot that provides visitor access to the area. 

The 22-acre Schliefer property is an inholding adjacent to the A.T. corridor within 

the Mt. Rogers National Recreation Area and likely will be developed if it remains 

in private ownership. Acquisition of the property would help ensure the remote, 

primitive character of the trail in the NRA. 

Other tracts include Cash (78 acres), and Campbell (292 acres) properties. However, due to the circumstances surrounding a number of the affected owners, not 

all of these properties are suitable for acquisition at this time. For this reason, al-
360

though total land-acquisition needs involve 814 acres at an estimated cost of $1.5 

million, only $1 million is being requested in fiscal year 2004 for the acquisition of 

approximately 450 acres.

TENNESSEE MOUNTAINS

State: Tennessee 

Region/Forest: Region 8, Cherokee National Forest 

Congressional District: 01: Representative(s): Bill Jenkins 

Senators William Frist and Lamar Alexander

APPROPRIATION HISTORY 

Appropriations received: 1996–2002 ................................................................................................................... $5,280,000 

Purchased through fiscal year 2002: Acres ........................................................................................................ 4,800 

Appropriated: 2003 .............................................................................................................................................. $4,400,000

Acres ............................................................................................................................................................ 2,442 

2004 Administration request ............................................................................................................................... $3,800,000 

Acres ............................................................................................................................................................ 2,649 

2004 Conservation request .................................................................................................................................. $5,300,000 

Acres ............................................................................................................................................................ 3,420

Significance.—The proposed acquisitions consist of inholdings of various sizes 

within the Cherokee National Forest. The Cherokee National Forest shares a common border with National Forests in Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. The 

Forest encompasses several high elevation mountain ranges in the Southern Appalachians with a rich biodiversity in both flora and fauna. Centered between the 

north half and south half of the Forest is the Great Smoky Mountains National 

Park. It is the most visited national park in the United States. Visitation to the entire area is very high and is steadily increasing due to easy access and proximity 

to large metropolitan areas including: Knoxville, and Gatlinburg, Tennessee that are 

within a thirty minute drive; Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Asheville, North Carolina, one hour; Atlanta, Georgia and Lexington, Kentucky, two hours; Nashville, 

Tennessee and Cincinnati, Ohio, three hours. 

A portion of the lands proposed for acquisition would protect the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (A.T.). The A.T. is a public footpath through 14 states across 

2,172 miles of spectacular Appalachian Mountain ridgelines from Maine to Georgia. 

About 220 miles of the A.T. cross the Cherokee National Forest. Management of the 

A.T. is a partnership between the Forest Service, National Park Service, Appalachian Trail Conference, and local hiking clubs. 

Acquisition of these key tracts in the Tennessee Mountains of the Cherokee National Forest will protect the Appalachian Trail, provide opportunities for public recreational uses (such as hunting, hiking, and fishing), improve public access, and protect critical natural resources, including wildlife habitat and fragile mountain watersheds. 

The Rocky Fork Tract (2,649 acres).—The Forest Service proposes to purchase approximately 2,649 acres of the larger area known as Rocky Fork. This would be the 

second of a multi-phased purchase of the entire 10,000-acre tract. (Purchase of 2,130 

acres was funded in fiscal year 2003). The tract encompasses the northeast section 

of the Rocky Fork area and is situated along the crest of Rich Mountain and includes Higgins Ridge and the entire upper watershed of Higgins Creek. Numerous 

tributaries combine within this area to form Higgins Creek, a major tributary, 

which then flows, into Indian Creek. Both Higgins Creek and Indian Creek are designated trout streams. The tract’s northern boundary lies along the crest of Rich 

Mountain adjoining the Sampson Mountain Wilderness and features stunning views 

of distant mountain ranges and valleys in Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia. 

Elevations of this tract range from 2, 200 feet in the valleys to 4,400 feet on Higgins 

Ridge at Frozen Knob. Ridgetops, rugged terrain, abundance of water and a mixture 

of hardwoods and evergreens provide excellent critical habitat for a variety of native 

fish and wildlife. 

The Rocky Fork tract is one of the largest undeveloped and pristine forested areas 

remaining in the rugged chain of the Appalachian Mountains. Rocky Fork harbors 

miles of native brook trout fisheries and vital watershed, rugged outcroppings and 

ridgelines featuring breathtaking views of distant mountain ranges and valleys including the Nolichucky River Valley in Unicoi and Greene Counties. Rocky Fork 

serves as critical wildlife habitat for black bear, deer, turkey, peregrine falcon and 

many other species. Much of the boundary adjoins National Forest, including the 
361

Sampson Mountain Wilderness. The Appalachian Trail, a National Scenic Trail, is 

situated along the western boundary of Rocky Fork. Acquisition of Rocky Fork 

would close a substantial gap in public lands along of the new scenic U.S. Hwy. 23 

corridor (soon to be designated I–26), enhance protection to the Appalachian Trail 

and Sampson Mountain Wilderness, preserve a large expanse of critical watershed, 

wildlife habitat and aesthetic beauty, and expand recreational opportunities, such 

as hiking, mountain biking, hunting, and fishing. 

The Forest Service has sought the acquisition of Rocky Fork for many years, but 

since the development of the U.S. Hwy 23 corridor, ownership of this large private 

holding has changed twice within the last four years. Thus far, purchasers have not 

pursued development of this wild area. With each transaction, combined with the 

expected completion of the U.S. Hwy 23 corridor linking the Tri-Cities in Tennessee 

to Asheville in North Carolina, development of Rocky Fork becomes an increasing 

possibility. Should this happen, an opportunity to preserve such a magnificent 

mountainous area will be lost forever. The estimated cost of acquiring this 2,649-

acre portion of Rocky Fork is $3,800,000. 

The Roan Mountain/Big Ridge Tract (250 acres).—This inholding lies on the 

slopes of Big Ridge in the Roan Mountain area of Carter County, Tennessee, on the 

headwaters of Doe River near the North Carolina/Tennessee state line. Georges 

Creek, an excellent native Brook Trout stream, flows 0.5 mile through the property, 

as do several unnamed tributaries. The slopes and peaks of this tract are covered 

with a mixed hardwood forest, with elevations that range from 2,600 to 4,000 feet. 

The property ties together fragmented and isolated National Forest (NF) ownership 

and adjoins Roan Mountain State Park. Roan Mountain State Park is one of Tennessee’s premier state parks which enjoys a high visitor count and features camping, cabin rentals, a historic farm, trout fishing, hiking trails, and vistas. Nearby 

is the 6,285-foot summit of Roan Mountain, an environmentally sensitive highlands 

area known for its unique flora, including scenic rhododendron gardens amid 

spruce-fir forests and grassy balds. Views from and to the property are outstanding. 

If not acquired, the property will be sold for private development, complicating NF 

management and limiting public benefits and uses. 

National Forest purchase of this property will: 

—Protect the best and most productive native Brook Trout waters in this region. 

—Protect habitat for 11 rare and endangered plant species, including several 

sedges. 

—Provide and improve public access to National Forest land. 

—Enhance FS management and public recreational use by linking roads and 

trails. 

—Provide habitat for a variety of wildlife, including black bear, deer, and wild 

turkey. 

—Protect a fragile and sensitive watershed that’s within 200 feet of the Doe River. 

—Protect waterfalls on Georges Creek that are critical for native trout management. 

—Preserve natural scenic values along US Highway 19E, a major tourist route. 

—Provide opportunity to plan a hiking/bike trail connecting with other public 

lands. 

—Protect high elevation slopes and peaks within view of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail. While the property is outside the trail’s corridor, it is highly 

visible from the trail’s vistas on nearby White Rocks Mountain and from the 

summit of Roan Mountain. 

In short, public ownership of the Roan Mountain/Big Ridge property will protect 

critical natural resources, greatly enhance National Forest management, and provide enormous public benefits. The estimated cost for this tract is $325,000. 

In addition to the Roan Mountain/Big Ridge tract, there is an opportunity to acquire two other smaller inholdings within the Cherokee National Forest that would 

provide critical public access to a large block of National Forest ownership and protect the highly scenic I–26 corridor. The purchase price of these two tracts, affecting 

170 acres, is estimated at $175,000. Those tracts, together with the Roan Mountain/

Big Ridge tract include a total of 420 acres at a cost of $500,000. 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail (884 Acres).—A total of 9 inholdings are proposed for purchase for protection of the Appalachian Trail (A,T.) within the Cherokee National Forest in Carter, Unicoi, and Greene counties. The tracts are located 

in the Sugarloaf Gap, Little Mountain, Shook Branch/Watauga, Hump Mountain, 

Allen Gap, and Buck Mountain areas. Acquisition of these scenic tracts will help 

maintain the undeveloped mountainous environment and visitor experiences along 

the Appalachian Trail. 

Over the years, tremendous progress has been made to acquire A.T. corridor lands 

and only a few remain that are not funded with prior-year appropriations. Addi-
362

tional funds are needed, however, due to a rerouting of the A.T. in the Shook 

Branch/Watauga area, where the trail is being relocated off a paved road with residences and onto a much improved route through a forested area, and as a result 

of significant land-value escalation during the past several years. 

The Appalachian Trail often is described as a national treasure. To complete protection of that treasure in the Tennessee Mountains requires additional funding. 

The total estimated funding need to purchase these tracts, encompassing 884 acres, 

is $2,200,000. However, only $1,000,000 is being requested in fiscal year 2004 for 

the acquisition of seven of the nine parcels, affecting approximately 300 acres. 

Constituencies.—There is growing public concern over development in areas that 

adversely affect critical ecosystems such as the above properties. The Cherokee Forest Land and Resource Management Plan addresses the need for significant land 

acquisition for recreation and ecosystem protection. Support for land acquisition by 

the Forest Service comes from local, state, regional, and national organizations, including the State Rivers Coordinator, The Wilderness Society, The Trust for Public 

Land, The Nature Conservancy, the State Historian, the Southern Appalachian 

Highlands Conservancy, the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, The Conservation Fund, the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, the Southern Environmental 

Law Center, Partners of Cherokee National Forest, local sportsman groups, and the 

Appalachian Trail Conference and its local affiliates, the Tennessee Eastman Hiking 

Club and the Smoky Mountains Hiking Club.

GEORGIA MOUNTAINS

State: Georgia 

Region/Forests: Region 8, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests 

Georgia 10th Congressional District: Representative Deal 

Senators Miller & Cleland

APPROPRIATION HISTORY 

Appropriations received: fiscal year 1997 ........................................................................................................... $155,000 

Acres acquired ............................................................................................................................................ 45.87 

Appropriations received: fiscal year 2002 ........................................................................................................... $1,200,000 

Acres acquired ............................................................................................................................................ 175 

Appropriations received: fiscal year 2003 ........................................................................................................... $3,200,000 

Acres to acquire .......................................................................................................................................... 550 

2004 request ........................................................................................................................................................ $1,000,000 

Acres ............................................................................................................................................................ 125

Springer Mountain ($850,000).—This tract was identified as a critical purchase 

for the Appalachian Trail project and has been actively sought for more than 30 

years. The owners of the tract agreed to sell in 2003, but due to rapidly escalating 

land values in the area, the appraised price exceeded the original project budget, 

and a phased purchase became necessary. The 2004 request is the second and final 

part of a phased purchase for this tract. The Springer tract encompasses the foreground vista from the southern terminus of the Appalachian Trail and is seen by 

many thousands of Forest visitors each year. Due to estate issues, this purchase 

must be completed this year. The remaining $150,000 will be used for other highpriority riparian area inholding tracts in the Chattahoochee and Oconee national 

forests. 

Constituencies.—The Chattahoochee Land and Resource Management Plan clearly 

addresses the need to acquire and consolidate the Forest. Support for acquisition by 

the Forest Service comes from local, state, regional and national organizations, including The Trust for Public Lands, The Nature Conservancy, The Conservation 

Fund, the Appalachian Trail Conference and its local affiliate, the Georgia Appalachian Trail Club, the Southern Environmental Law Center, Georgia Forest Watch, 

local sportsmen, Trout Unlimited, The Wilderness Society, the Georgia DNR, the 

Chattawah Land Trust, NRCS, local county commissioners, the University of Georgia, The Upper Etowah River Alliance, and local business leaders. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AUDUBON

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of over one million members and supporters of Audubon, 

thank you for the opportunity to express to your Committee our recommendations 

for fiscal year 2004 funding of Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service 

programs. The purpose of our testimony is to recommend levels of funding for spe-
363

cific programs that are vital to our mission to protect birds, other wildlife, and their 

habitat. 

EVERGLADES RESTORATION

We are grateful to the Committee for its long-standing support of Everglades restoration through the appropriations process and in important appropriations-related 

policy issues such as the Modified Water Deliveries project and the programmatic 

regulations. We urge the Subcommittee to support the following funding needs for 

fiscal year 2004: 

—National Park Service Land Acquisition Assistance to the State of Florida 

should be funded at $20 million (the Administration’s fiscal year 2003 request).—The State of Florida has run out of money for land acquisitions and the 

integrity of the entire CERP rests on land acquisition. 

—U.S. Geological Services and NPS Everglades science programs should be increased to at least $15 million.—CESI funding should be gradually restored to 

its previous levels of $12 million. Adequate funding should also be provided to 

ongoing critical Everglades studies regarding the sheet flow of water across the 

Everglades, water quality, the levels of mercury and other contaminants, nutrient levels, and the complex interaction of groundwater and surface water in 

South Florida. On-going science and research are critical to the successful use 

of adaptive assessment. Applied research that directly supports implementation 

and monitoring of project effectiveness is vital to the success of the CERP. 

—The Restoration, Coordination, and Verification Team (RECOVER), should be 

funded by Interior at $3 million.—Interior and the Corps of Engineers share 

federal leadership on RECOVER, so it is appropriate that Interior contribute to 

this aspect of Everglades restoration. 

—CERP implementation for Fish and Wildlife Service and NPS in fiscal year 2004 

should be increased to $10 million. 

—The Modified Water Deliveries project should be funded at $15 million, $2 million above the Administraion’s request.—The budget must continue adequate 

funding for previously authorized programs whose performance assumptions 

have been included in the CERP. It is crucial to the successful and timely implementation of CERP that all components of the Modified Water Deliveries 

project be adequately funded and completed in 2005. This will require $15 million in fiscal year 2004 and an additional $15 million in fiscal year 2005. 

LAND CONSERVATION, PRESERVATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT FUND

(LCPII)

We urge you to renew the commitment to fully fund LCPII at its dedicated 

amount of $2.08 billion in fiscal year 2004, while the DOI appropriations portion 

of LCPII should receive $1.56 billion. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) 

We urge the Committee to appropriate the full $900 million authorized for LWCF, 

with $200 million allocated to the stateside LWCF program, to combat the rapid 

rate of habitat loss threatening America’s native birds and wildlife. Incorporating 

input from our 27 state offices and more than 500 chapters, we have identified dozens of critically important conservation opportunities through LWCF and we will 

provide a complete list of those priorities for the committee’s consideration in the 

coming weeks. 

State Wildlife Grants 

This valuable program provides matching grants for design and implementation 

of habitat and wildlife conservation plans and allows states to conserve and restore 

declining native species prior to a necessity to list them as endangered or threatened. The Administration’s request of $60 million for combined State and Tribal 

Wildlife Grants short-changes the important conservation goals of this program. Audubon supports funding SWGs at $125 million in fiscal year 2004. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)

National Wildlife Refuge System 

America’s Refuge System faces a massive $2 billion backlog of operations and 

maintenance needs that is widely recognized as a handicap to Fish and Wildlife 

Service efforts to conserve and protect the System’s more than 94 million acres of 

prime habitat for more than 2,000 bird and wildlife species. We call on the Committee to seize the opportunity provided by the Refuge System Centennial to in-
364

crease funding for refuge operations and maintenance by $100 million over the fiscal 

year 2003 level. 

Endangered Species Program 

We firmly believe that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one of our nation’s 

most important environmental laws. We continue to be disappointed that the Endangered Species Program has not been funded at the level needed to carry out its 

critical purpose of staving off the loss of irreplaceable species and biological diversity. Although FWS’s needs are much greater, in order to maintain its programs, 

we urge the Committee to appropriate at least $275.7 million toward the Endangered Species Program. 

Law Enforcement Operations 

The FWS Law Enforcement program is a primary means of protecting fish, wildlife, and plants throughout the United States. There are currently only 231 FWS 

special agents, despite an authorized level of 253. We therefore urge the Committee 

to provide $3 million over the Administration’s request to $55.6 million in fiscal year 

2004. 

Neotropical Migratory Birds and the Multinational Species Conservation Fund 

Approximately 500 of the existing 800 bird species found within the United States 

migrate across this nation’s borders annually. The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) was passed to reverse the decline of migratory birds that 

breed in the United States by protecting their habitats in Latin America and the 

Caribbean. For a great deal of these species, this region contains almost the entire 

world population of these birds in the non-breeding season. In 2002, the very first 

year for this program, there were 290 grant proposals, from 33 countries and 31 

states, for a total of more than $120 million in proposed grants and matching conservation work submitted to the Fish and Wild Life Service. With the limited budget 

of $3 million, however, only 32 of the proposals could be granted. In light of the 

enormous demand for this program, we respectfully request the full-authorized 

amount of $5 million in fiscal year 2003 and 2004. 

We ask that for the remaining Multinational Species Conservation mammal 

funds, you appropriate $2 million each for the Asian Elephant Conservation Fund, 

the African Elephant Conservation Fund, and the Great Apes Conservation Fund; 

and $3 million for the combined Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Fund. 

Migratory Bird Management (MBM) 

The President’s budget for fiscal year 2004 is insufficient to enable FWS MBM 

to adequately carry out its mission. We urge the Committee to increase funding for 

MBM by $12.4 million, for a total of $43.5 million. 

The FWS Migratory Bird Management (MBM) budget has been essentially flat for 

the last 10 years. No increase has been provided since 1998, and the base funding 

for MBM programs has been steadily eroded by cost of living increases and unforeseen expenses. MBM has had to absorb $475,000 in postal costs for the Harvest Information Monitoring (HIP) program and $300,000 for DOI’s Office of Aircraft Safety this year, expenses that were previously covered out of a FWS overhead cost pool. 

For the first time this year, OAS has not issued a waiver to FWS to fly planes over 

weight capacity limits, so valuable migratory bird survey data could be disrupted. 

We recommend that $2 million be provided to begin to replace aged planes so surveys may continue. No funding has been provided for an additional $400,000 cost 

of living increases this year. Last year the $575,000 duck stamp program was transferred to MBM without any accompanying funding. MBM has also been burdened 

by unforeseen earmarks, including a $550,000 reward band study and a $250,000 

golden eagle survey. While these earmarked programs would be warranted at some 

point in the future, FWS can not carry them out this year without cutting core activities. MBM needs more FTEs, particularly biologists, to carry out its responsibilities through support of Partners in Flight (PIF), the U.S. Shorebird Plan, and the 

North American Waterbird Conservation Plan. The office has zero funding for PIF 

regional coordinators, which were eliminated this year. An additional $1.1 million 

would provide for seven PIF regional coordinators, plus nominal program expenses. 

Despite a hiring freeze and dramatic reductions in travel expenses, MBM faces a 

deficit of $2 million in fiscal year 2004. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

Managing for At-Risk Species and Habitats 

We urge the Committee to increase the President’s budget request for BLM 

Threatened and Endangered Species Programs to $38 million. These funds will give 
365

the agency the ability to implement some 200 necessary recovery activities for listed 

species, and to conserve other species to avoid the listing of new species. Many of 

the species found on BLM land are birds, which the Wildlife Habitat Management, 

the Threatened and Endangered Species Management, and the Riparian Management programs work to conserve. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)

Biological Research Division 

Audubon urges the Committee to appropriate $207 million, a total increase of $37 

million, to the USGS for the Biological Research Division. Ongoing research and 

monitoring within BRD help Interior’s land management agencies to maintain the 

health, diversity, and ecological balances of biological resources. Funding at current 

levels for the BRD is not fully adequate to meet the science needs of the Interior 

agencies and the complex, interrelated natural systems they must manage. 

West Nile Virus 

Nearly two hundred species of birds have been infected by West Nile Virus, which 

has spread to forty-four states since it was first reported in 1999. The BRD requires 

additional staff and funding to better understand and contain this epidemic. We 

urge the committee to provide $3 million to BRD for research and monitoring in fiscal year 2004. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS)

International Programs 

Audubon strongly urges the Committee to provide $10 million to these grossly 

under-funded programs in fiscal year 2004. Of special interest to Audubon within 

the International Programs is the Migratory Bird Conservation program. Unfortunately, many migratory birds are experiencing rapid population decline due mainly 

to the loss of habitat outside of the United States. An increase of $3 million, to $4.2 

million for the Migratory Bird Conservation Program will provide the resources 

needed to help conserve such species as the Kirtland’s Warbler, Swallow-Tailed 

Kite, Cerulean Warbler, Bicknell’s Thrush, and The Mountain Plover. Without such 

support, these migratory bird species will likely continue to decline and may ultimately face extinction. 

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to testify on Audubon’s priorities 

for the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service. I appreciate the fact that this 

is a large agenda, but the problems facing America’s birds, wildlife and their habitat 

are daunting. We look forward to working with you to protect America’s birds, wildlife and habitat. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CASCADES CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

Mr. Chairman, The Cascades Conservation Partnership, a public-private campaign, is seeking appropriations in fiscal year 2004 to protect important conservation and recreation lands in Washington’s Central Cascades. Our request matches 

each forest conservation objective with the appropriate tool, either Forest Legacy or 

LWCF. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony to the committee. 

FOREST LEGACY REQUEST.—$2.5 MILLION—EASTON/YAKIMA RIVER

—Funds would secure conservation easements on 1600 acres to retain forests near 

Easton and the Yakima River. 

—Rapid conversion of prime forestland to urban type developments fragments 

habitat, reduces recreational opportunities and increases risk of fire. 

LWCF REQUEST.—$8.5 MILLION—PLUM CREEK/I–90

—Funds would acquire 6,500 acres of checkerboard lands identified by Congress 

as important for acquisition. Reduces management expenses of public and private landowners. 

—Forest Service options to purchase expire at end of this year. 

—Wildlife habitat includes 1,700 acres of late-successional forest. 

—Lands are near Interstate 90, include 5 miles of trails, and are extremely popular with recreationists. 
366

LWCF REQUEST.—$3.5 MILLION—CARBON RIVER

—Funds would acquire 700 acres of Plum Creek Timber Company lands, adjacent 

to Mt. Rainier National Park, providing important wildlife and salmon habitat 

and recreational opportunities. 

EXPLANATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2004 REQUEST

Forest Legacy.—$2.5 million—Easton/Yakima River 

The Forest Legacy project would acquire conservation easements on approximately 1600 acres on lands to retain forests near Easton and the Yakima River. 

This strategic project supports a working forest landscape connected to nearby private, state and national forest lands. Rapid conversion of prime forestland to urban 

type developments fragments habitat, reduces recreational opportunities and increases risk of fire and fire suppression costs. 

LWCF.—$8.5 million—Plum Creek/I–90, Wenatchee National Forest 

Keystone Lands.—Bringing certain lands into public ownership would eliminate 

the checkerboard ownership pattern and improve management of both public and 

private lands. Over 1,600 acres of roadless area and 1,700 acres of late-successional 

forest provide critical habitat for species dependent on large contiguous forested 

areas to survive. These parcels are contained in areas that have been given special 

designations by the Forest Service, such as the Snoqualmie Pass Adaptive Management Area. 

Forested creeks in the Cle Elum River Valley provide important habitat for fish 

and wildlife as well as abundant recreational opportunities. Several trails and campgrounds are located in this area just south of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Significant roadless areas, including Kachess Ridge and Teanaway, surround the valley. 

Parcels in the Manastash Roadless Area include groves of pine and fir, with waters 

flowing into Taneum Creek, which supports bull trout. These tracts of land are 

home to threatened spotted owls. They also contain miles of trails and scenic vistas. 

Urgency.—Plum Creek Timber Company is a willing seller, and appraisals are 

complete. But the ancient forests on fiscal year 2004 parcels are threatened with 

logging next year, as the restrictions on logging and road building in these parcels 

run out at the end of this year. 

Option Lands.—In negotiations with Plum Creek Timber Company over the I–90 

land exchange, many important lands were dropped from the transfer. However, the 

Forest Service was granted an option to purchase many of the highest priority 

lands. These options run out at the end of 2003. If the Forest Service allows its options to expire, Plum Creek may sell the lands to another buyer (the company has 

been actively marketing its Cascade lands). Even if Plum Creek agrees to sell the 

lands to the Forest Service following the expiration of these options, a new appraisal 

may be required, which may increase the purchase price significantly. 

Congressional Support.—In 1998, Congress passed legislation that directed the I–

90 Land Exchange between the Forest Service and Plum Creek Timber Co. be completed. Congress found that, ‘‘. . . the checkerboard ownership pattern in the area 

has frustrated sound and efficient land management on both private and National 

Forest lands... [and that] acquisition . . . of certain parcels of land... will 

serve important public objectives, including... enhancement of public access, aesthetics and recreation opportunities... protection and enhancement of old-growth 

forests and habitat for threatened, endangered and sensitive species... meet a 

broad array of ecosystem protection and other public land management 

goals... [and provide] a significant reduction in administrative costs to the 

United States . . .’’ (section 602, fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act). The 

legislation specifically mentions trails, streams and unroaded lands as important 

public gains. The subject parcels still retain those values. 

LWCF.—$3.5 million—Carbon River, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF 

700 acres of Plum Creek Timber Company lands, adjacent to Mt. Rainier National 

Park, provide important lowland forest habitat and connections. This includes over 

2 miles of frontage on the Carbon River, protecting salmon habitat. The project is 

part of a larger valley conservation plan with broad public support, designed to improve recreation, habitat protection and economic stability. 

THE CASCADES CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

Unique Effort to Protect Wildlife Connections and Recreational Opportunities 

Providing a Private Match for Public Funding.—The Cascades Conservation Partnership is an unprecedented three-year public-private campaign to purchase and 
367

protect forest lands that link the Alpine Lakes to Mt. Rainier. The Partnership 

seeks funding to accomplish this goal. In addition to seeking Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations for the acquisition of lands included in our proposal, 

we have undertaken a private fundraising campaign. To date, The Partnership has 

raised $14.5 million from over 16,000 citizens. 

Focusing on Wildlife.—Our effort is to protect important conservation lands-especially habitat corridors between Washington’s north and south Cascades-to ensure 

the viability of many wildlife species. Several of these species are threatened or endangered. Further fragmentation of the forest threatens the wildlife corridors and 

risks splitting species into smaller, more vulnerable populations. 

Spotted owls, wide-ranging cougars tracking herds of deer and elk, and martens 

will make good use of the habitat we protect. Even smaller species such as salamanders need a connection. 

Protecting Spectacular Lands & High Demand Recreation Areas.—In addition to 

their importance to wildlife, these lands are prized for the values they contribute 

to our quality of life. Key lands included in our proposal provide clean water for 

drinking and spawning habitat for endangered salmon. The lands contain vast recreational opportunities for the burgeoning population of Washington State, including more than 45 miles of trails. Hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, hunting, fishing, and camping are just an hour’s drive from Seattle. 

COMBINED FUNDING AND ACQUISITIONS

Several sources of funds have been used to conserve forests in the Cascades. 

Federal Funds.—Congress has appropriated $40 million for nearly 23,000 acres in 

the checkerboard country. These acquisitions included 4,000 acres of roadless lands, 

five miles of river, more than 5,000 acres of ancient forest and over 12 miles of trail, 

including segments of the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. 

Private Funds.—The Partnership has raised over $14.5 million to date, and has 

purchased 4,200 acres, including three mile-square parcels in the Manastash 

roadless area plus lands in a valley near Leavenworth. These tracts, containing oldgrowth forests, streams and trails, were donated to the Forest Service. 

Forest Legacy Program.—The federal Forest Legacy Program provides grants to 

states to conserve forest land threatened with conversion to urban developments. 

With conservation easements, the lands can remain as forestland in private ownership. For selected areas this will provide added support to the wildlife corridors, 

where the core is in public ownership. 

Washington State.—Washington State and nearby cities have acquired nearby 

critical low-elevation properties to better protect the greater Central Cascade ecosystem from development, including urban sprawl. In the past decade, Washington 

and other local governments have acquired more than 37,000 acres in the area surrounding The Partnership’s proposal. Currently, funding for two major state acquisitions is pending. 

Related Transportation Project.—The Washington Department of Transportation 

is planning an expansion of Interstate 90 east of Snoqualmie Pass. One objective 

of this project is to improve wildlife connectivity. Among the improvements will be 

major bridge structures that will allow wildlife to move under the freeway, and two 

of the structures are adjacent to our acquisition targets on the Yakima River Wildlife Corridor. The Partnership’s forest conservation project will solidify the habitat 

areas north and south of the freeway, and the I–90 project will improve wildlife 

movement between these areas. Both projects are essential for wildlife connectivity. 

The I–90 project will also reduce the threats of accidents involving animals crossing 

the freeway. 

THE CASCADES CONSERVATION PARTNERSHIP

Alpine Lakes Protection Society; Biodiversity Northwest; Kittitas Audubon Society; Kittitas League of Women Voters; Kongsberger Ski Club; North Cascade Conservation Council; Northwest Ecosystem Alliance; Seattle Audubon Society; Sierra 

Club; The Mountaineers; Washington Native Plant Society; Washington Trails Association; Washington Wildlife Federation; and The Wilderness Society. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HIGHLANDS COALITION

On behalf of the more 100 member groups of the Highlands Coalition, I am writing to request fiscal year 2004 appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Forest Legacy Program to conserve the valuable forests in the Highlands region. I am also writing to encourage a total appropriation for Forest Legacy 
368

of $150 million as part of full funding ($2.08 billion) of the Conservation Trust Fund 

(Title VIII) package authorized in 2000. 

BACKGROUND

The over 2 million-acre Highlands Region is defined by a series of forested ridges 

stretching through four states (PA, NJ, NY and CT). These ridges border and buffer 

several major metropolitan areas, including Philadelphia, New York City and Hartford. Approximately 25 million people live within an hour of the Highlands, and 

over 15 million people rely on surface and ground waters from Highlands watersheds for their drinking water. Some 247 threatened and endangered species occur 

in the Highlands and over 14 million people visit the region’s parks annually for 

recreation. For these reasons, the USDA Forest Service found the Highlands to be 

of ‘‘national significance’’ in their 1992 and 2002 studies of the region. 

Unfortunately, the forested ridges of the Highlands are becomingly increasingly 

fragmented and converted to non-forest uses due to intense development pressure 

from suburban sprawl. The USDA Forest Service’s NY–NJ Highlands Regional 

Study: 2002 Update documented the loss of over 5,400 acres of open space to development annually in the NY–NJ Highlands alone between 1995 and 2000, a four-fold 

increase since their previous study of the region in 1992. The Study projects that 

if current trends continue, the population of the NY–NJ Highlands region (1.4 million) could increase by 50 percent, leading to significant impacts on both water quality and quantity, wildlife and recreation. 

Only 20 percent of this nationally significant region has been conserved publicly 

or privately. The NY–NJ Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update identified nearly 

540,000 acres of land that have high conservation value for water, wildlife, recreation, and productive forests and farmland, but are currently unprotected. Almost 

100,000 acres of these high-value lands are identified as facing imminent development pressure. The Highlands Coalition, a group of over 100 national, regional, 

state and local organizations working to protect the region, has identified 180,000 

acres of priority conservation lands in the NY–NJ Highlands at an estimated value 

of $750 million. 

FISCAL YEAR 2004 FUNDING NEEDS AND REQUESTS

For fiscal year 2004, the Highlands Coalition respectfully submits the following 

requests for funding: 

—$3 million from the Land & Water Conservation Fund for the Mount Bethel and 

Egan projects, two important additions to the Wallkill NWR, one of our identified Critical Treasure areas of the NJ Highlands. 

—$8 million from the Forest Legacy program for five projects in the Upper Delaware River Watershed area of the NJ Highlands identified as the top priority 

by the State of NJ: Stabile, Culbertson, Checchio, Buckhorn Creek, and Crown 

Towers. 

—$8 million as requested by the State of New York from the Forest Legacy program for the Highlands/Taconics region, including the following projects: 

Pochuck Mountain, Blumberg, Fahnstock-Kisslinger, Cabot, Ice Pond, JJNC 

(Great Swamp) and Gilbert (Vernay Lake). Additional critical projects that 

should be considered for future funding include Torne Valley, Shirazi (Sterling 

Forest) and Storm King School Property. 

—$150 million in total program funding for Forest Legacy, to accommodate not 

only these critical projects in the Highlands, but also the many other important 

projects throughout the eastern forests. National requests for fiscal year 2004 

were in excess of $300 million. 

—$2.08 billion for Title VIII, the Conservation Trust Fund, the authorized level 

for fiscal year 2004. For our region’s priority projects to receive critical Forest 

Legacy funding, and also for a host of important conservation initiatives across 

the nation, it is imperative that the array of programs included in this title be 

fully funded. 

Finally, the fiscal year 2002 Interior Appropriations Bill included language requesting the Secretary of Interior to join the Secretary of Agriculture to review the 

findings of the NY–NJ Highlands Regional Study: 2002 Update and to report to the 

Committee on ways in which the Federal Government can partner with state, county, local and private efforts to preserve critical lands within this nationally significant area in the Northeast. We urge you to review the final report and recommendations and to consider these findings as you make decisions regarding funding priorities in fiscal year 2004 and beyond. 
369

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the need for funding from the Forest Legacy program and the Land & Water Conservation Fund in fiscal year 2004 

to protect these critical and threatened forested watersheds in the Highlands region. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

AGENCIES

U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS)

General Comments 

The fiscal year 2004 budget approach (initiated for fiscal year 2001) continues to 

make it very difficult to understand the budget request and to make meaningful 

comparisons with previous year appropriations. The Association continues to object 

to the Forest Service budget structure. Without specific budget line items and expenditures for specific purposes, the current approach does not promote accountability to State partners, the public, or Congress. In addition, the lumping of important items in the budget structure contributes to the continuing perception of the 

diminution of Forest Service effectiveness and accomplishment resulting from planning-based operational changes. In particular, the so-called ‘‘output’’ measures of accomplishment (e.g., acres ‘‘enhanced’’, miles of stream ‘‘enhanced’’) are so broad and 

nonspecific as to be meaningless to measure either the services provided or the benefits derived. 

The Forest Service is in the process of eliminating the accounting ‘‘by work activities’’ system and implementing a new national work planning system effective April 

2003. We recognize the desire to reduce the number of budget line items but believe 

a better system is needed to get accountability for allocated monies. The Association 

requests that future budgets include individual line items specific to fish, wildlife, 

and endangered species habitat management. This should include specific line items 

for: (1) wildlife and vegetation; and (2) watersheds and fisheries, specifying the 

threatened and endangered species efforts within each. This breakdown will combine improved performance accountability with improved opportunities for integrated activities with the state fish and wildlife agencies and other federal agencies. 

Furthermore, the Association continues to urge Congress to provide a budget 

which reflects the full range of needs as identified in the Forest Plans. The planning 

process includes extensive public and agency considerations that are addressed in 

adoption of the final plans. The public benefits both economically and environmentally as a result of balanced consideration for all National Forest resources. According to a 1996 survey, wildlife-related recreation on National Forest lands contributed $21 billion to the national economy, and recreational fishing generated an 

additional $8.5 billion. All these uses on National Forest lands are projected to significantly increase in the future, and where addressed in Forest Plans, should be 

reflected in the budgets. 

Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management 

The Association supports the proposed fiscal year 2004 budget of $134.8 million 

for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Program, which (with adjustments) is essentially level-funded. The Association specifically recommends and 

urges that the USFS coordinate closely with the State fish and wildlife agencies in 

the use of these funds. We also draw attention to the important partnership benefits 

achieved through the Challenge Cost-Share Program and support continued funding 

as proposed. 

The USFS needs to coordinate closely with the respective State fish and wildlife 

agencies so that programs and activities do not compromise State jurisdictional authorities for fish and resident wildlife. The USFS also needs to facilitate the cooperative design and conduct of research and management programs with state agencies 

to reduce duplication and increase acceptability of program results. Genuine cooperative efforts between the USFS and the State fish and wildlife agencies will play 

a critical role in achieving land and resource objectives for species and related resources. 

We applaud the implementation of the Presidential Management Initiatives and 

Forest Service Initiatives to streamline operations to reduce bureaucracy. While reducing the number of positions in headquarters by transfers to field offices, we urge 

the USFS take care to avoid positions which duplicate or overlap with state fish and 

wildlife biologist positions and programs. In times of reduced state budgets, it is 

particularly important for the Service to look to ways to use funding to assist the 

state programs and biologists involved in mutual projects. 
370

Forest and Rangelands Research 

The proposed fiscal year 2004 budget provides $252 million for Forest and Rangeland Research, an increase of approximately $9 million above the fiscal year 2003 

request but essentially level with the fiscal year 2002 enacted budget. The fiscal 

year 2004 budget provides over $11 million for new research initiatives related to 

invasive species, the Healthy Forests Initiative and Sudden Oak Death disease. The 

Association supports the proposed fiscal year 2004 research budget provided current 

activities in the Wildlife, Fish, Water, and Air Research segment of the budget can 

be maintained. 

Roads, Trails, and Facilities 

The Association has continuing concerns regarding proposed funding and management decisions involving roads and trails. There is a need to prioritize funding for 

maintenance and to address deteriorating, unsafe conditions. We support the increases in fiscal year 2004 for the USFS roads, trails, and facilities program but request additional funding for this and subsequent fiscal years for maintenance and 

improvements to resolve the maintenance backlog. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget estimates the deferred maintenance backlog of roads 

and bridges at $10 billion, and if eliminated, the annual maintenance needs would 

be approximately $152 million. These figures are significantly different than the fiscal year 2003 budget document, perhaps due to changes in the budget structure 

itself. We urge that future budget documents break out deferred maintenance, backlog of improvements, and other components from facilities so that the funding needs 

and accomplishments can be more consistently evaluated. 

The Association strongly urges the USFS to closely coordinate with State and 

local agencies early in the process of decisions to close or to reduce use of roads on 

the National Forest System. Many roads are important to the transportation needs 

and desires of local communities and recreational users. While poorly designed, constructed, or maintained roads add significantly to water quality issues and fish 

habitat concerns, involvement of organizations with interests in maintaining or retaining roads may result in additional options for correcting those conditions without total closure. As noted in the past, road closures should seek a balance with consideration for adequate recreational and other user access to National Forest lands. 

In particular, cooperation with State fish and wildlife agencies in identifying roads 

to close or to seek alternate management options is strongly recommended. 

State and Private Forestry 

We commend the President for increasing the Forest Legacy budget in fiscal year 

2004 to $91 million. We encourage Congress to support this $20 million funding increase over the fiscal year 2003 President’s budget. We request that the USFS develop a nationally competitive and unbiased process to rank Forest Legacy projects 

that includes state lead agencies and Forest Service staff participation (Forest Service staff should be within comparable employment rank to avoid weighting by supervisors). We appreciate that the budget for fiscal year 2004 now includes specific 

funding identified for the Forest Legacy program by state and project. 

The Stewardship Incentive Program and Forestry Incentives Program were replaced with Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). We support the $25 million 

request for FLEP in fiscal year 2004. 

The Association continues to strongly support programs that assist private landowners and States to improve and enhance fisheries and wildlife habitat, protect 

watershed values, and contribute to the economic and environmental well being of 

urban and rural America. Under the Cooperative Forestry component of the State 

and Private Forestry budget, we support the proposed budget increases for the 

Urban and Community Forestry program. 

National Fire Plan 

The Association is deeply concerned by the complete lack of any funding request 

in the fiscal year 2004 Forest Service budget for National Fire Plan rehabilitation 

and restoration. In fiscal year 2001 the amount allocated for this purpose was 

$141.7 million; in fiscal year 2002 the level declined to $62.7 million; in fiscal year 

2003 Congress approved $7.1 million; and in fiscal year 2004 the President’s budget 

request for rehabilitation and restoration is zeroed out. This comes at a time when 

19.2 million acres of forestland have burned in the past three years—7 million in 

2002 alone—with four states experiencing their largest fires in recorded history. 

Predictions call for another catastrophic fire season in 2003. 

Given this devastating trend, the Association is at a loss to understand the absence of any fiscal resources directed at rehabilitation and restoration, while the 

other four program areas of the National Fire Plan have experienced, and are pro-
371

posed for, significant budgetary increases. This action on the part of the Forest 

Service also appears to be in direct conflict with Congressional direction for the 10-

year comprehensive strategy as expressed in the Conference Report for the fiscal 

year 2001 Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (Public Law 106–291). 

That report specifically directed, ‘‘The Secretaries should also work with the Governors on a long-term strategy to deal with the wildland and hazardous fuels situations, as well as the needs for habitat restoration and rehabilitation in the 

Nation . . .’’ As such, and given the obvious need for ongoing forestland rehabilitation and restoration throughout the life of the National Fire Plan, the Association 

strongly recommends Congress appropriate at least $25 million in the fiscal year 

2004 Forest Service National Fire Plan budget for the exclusive purpose of rehabilitation and restoration, and in the out years, the Forest Service submit realistic 

funding requests to meet this requirement. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOTHER LODE CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB

The Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club urges the Subcommittee to recommend a $2 million Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriation for 

Inholdings in Sierra Nevada National Forests. 

This appropriation is included in the President’s Budget. 

This appropriation would purchase lands at several locations in the Tahoe National Forest. The first priority would be the remaining large parcels along the 

North Fork of the American Wild River. The remaining funds would purchase: 

(1) lands along the Middle Fork of the American River; and 

(2) Barker Pass lands near the Pacific Crest Trail. 

The significant natural values that would be preserved by each of these purchases 

are described in the following sections of this letter. 

Appropriations for purchasing lands in the North Fork of the American Wild 

River and the Middle Fork of the American River are supported by the Placer County Board of Supervisors, the Board of Directors of the Placer County Water Agency, 

and civic and environmental organizations in Placer County. 

THE NORTH FORK OF THE AMERICAN WILD RIVER

The appropriation would purchase 1,400 acres of private lands along the North 

Fork of the American Wild River in Tahoe National Forest, California. The anticipated cost of these lands is about $1 million. The Forest Service has already acquired 8,200 acres along and near the Wild River, and the proposed purchase would 

finally complete the acquisitions of presently available large private parcels in and 

near the Wild River Zone. 

The North Fork American River flows down the western slope of the Sierra Nevada in a beautiful wild rugged canyon more than half a mile deep. Most of the canyon is steep-walled and narrow. 

Both the Federal Government and the State of California designated a 38-mile 

stretch of the North Fork American as a Wild River in the 1970’s. The designations 

recognized the river’s outstanding wildness and beauty and its exceptionally pure 

waters. 

The river supports an excellent self-sustaining trout fishery managed as a Wild 

Trout Stream by the State of California. The canyon is home to numerous large 

mammals, including black bear and mountain lion, and provides habitat for 150 species of birds, including peregrine falcons, golden eagles, and goshawks. The canyon’s 

varied ecosystems and vegetation, including a large acreage of old-growth forest, are 

almost unspoiled. Ten challenging trails descend steeply into the canyon, providing 

access for rugged hikers, backpackers, and fishermen seeking solitude and strenuous adventure. 

Though the canyon is remote and rugged, development which would degrade the 

beauty and naturalness of these private lands could still occur. A previous owner 

filed helicopter logging plans on several of the parcels. Cabin sites could be developed on some of the parcels, degrading their naturalness and limiting public recreational access. 

THE MIDDLE FORK OF THE AMERICAN RIVER

Funds would also be used to begin the purchase of private lands in the canyon 

of the Middle Fork of the American River, the adjacent major drainage to the south. 

The available lands include almost all the private land in a 25-mile stretch of the 

Middle Fork canyon. This stretch of the Middle Fork is the boundary between Tahoe 

and Eldorado National Forests. 
372

The canyon of the Middle Fork is even more narrow, steep, rugged, and remote 

than the canyon of the North Fork, and also possesses all the same outstanding features. The clean waters of the river support a high-quality trout fishery sustained 

by natural reproduction. Large mammals, including black bear and mountain lion, 

are found in the canyon. This remote unspoiled canyon provides habitat for the 

same species of birds, including several sensitive species—spotted owls, peregrine 

falcons, golden eagles, and goshawks. Fishermen and naturalists who make the 

strenuous descent into the canyon are rewarded by pristine conditions and solitude. 

The Middle Fork is a major source of high-quality water for Placer County and 

fast-growing downstream areas. Placer County has developed the Middle Fork for 

water supply and hydroelectric power; this development directly affects only a small 

proportion of the 25 miles of canyon. Unified management of the Middle Fork Canyon by the Forest Service would better protect water quality and better guarantee 

preservation of its outstanding natural attributes. Possible future mining and logging on private land could significantly degrade the canyon’s naturalness and the 

purity of the Middle Fork’s waters. 

BARKER PASS LANDS NEAR THE PACIFIC CREST TRAIL

Barker Pass crosses the Sierra Nevada crest on the edge of the Tahoe Basin. Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) has made 1,400 acres near Barker Pass available for 

purchase. These lands are just outside the Tahoe Basin and adjacent to the Granite 

Chief Wilderness. About 640 of the 1,400 acres were purchased by an fiscal year 

2003 LWCF appropriation. 

The Pacific Crest Trail along the crest near Barker Pass traverses lands with attractive forest and meadow scenery; volcanic outcrops add scenic variety. Human activities do not dominate views from the Trail, despite past roading and logging. 

Upper Barker Meadow provides attractive campsites for PCT hikers. 

Development of these lands would have significant adverse effects on the Pacific 

Crest Trail, the Granite Chief Wilderness, and major trails into the Wilderness. 

Much of the SPI acreage could be developed for summer residences, especially appealing to purchasers preferring an isolated location. These lands are easily accessible from Lake Tahoe in summer by the high-standard Blackwood Canyon Road. 

Lands outside the Tahoe Basin are not subject to the Basin’s strict controls on development. 

The integrity of the Granite Chief Wilderness and wilderness users’ experiences 

would be adversely affected by development on the SPI parcels near the boundary 

of the Granite Chief Wilderness. 

The SPI lands, the largest block of private lands in the watersheds of the Granite 

Chief Wilderness, include the headwaters of Powderhorn and Little Powderhorn 

Creeks. New development and roadbuilding on the SPI lands would increase erosion 

and siltation in these tributaries of Five Lakes Creek. Pristine Five Lakes Creek, 

which flows through a beautiful wilderness canyon, supports an outstanding population of wild rainbow trout. 

Acquisition of the SPI lands near Barker Pass will foreclose the possibility of development adversely affecting the Pacific Crest Trail and the watersheds of the 

Granite Chief Wilderness. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

The National Association of Conservation Districts is the nonprofit, nongovernment organization that represents the nation’s 3,000 conservation districts and more 

than 16,000 men and women who serve on their governing boards. Established 

under state law, conservation districts are local units of state government charged 

with carrying out programs for the protection and management of natural resources 

at the local level. They work with nearly two-and-half million cooperating landowners and operators—many of them farmers and ranchers—to provide technical 

and other assistance to help them manage and protect private land in the United 

States. In carrying out their mission to coordinate and carry out all levels of conservation programs, districts work closely with USDA and USDI agencies to provide 

the technical and other help farmers and ranchers need to plan and apply complex 

conservation practices, measures and systems including their interactions with public lands. 

The partnership of conservation districts, state conservation agencies, state forestry agencies, state wildlife agencies and other resource organizations provide 

farmers and ranchers with critical help in protecting and improving the quantity 

and quality of our soil and water resources while meeting both domestic and international food and fiber needs. America’s agricultural producers provide many bene-
373

fits to our citizens including clean water and air, fish and wildlife habitat and open 

space. Many of the practices producers apply on their land also take carbon out of 

the atmosphere and store it in the soil, providing a hedge against global climate 

change. 

As stewards of the nation’s working lands, farmers, ranchers and forestland owners manage the vast majority of America’s private lands and provide tremendous environmental benefits to the country. They also have a considerable influence on 

many of the nation’s public lands. 

On behalf of America’s conservation districts, I am pleased to provide our recommendations on selected conservation programs carried out through the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Interior relative to conservation on 

both private and public lands. 

FOREST SERVICE

State and Private Forestry 

The private forestlands of the nation are coming under increasing pressure for 

production of wood and other products. Resource concerns and needs include growing fragmentation, wildfire threats and insect and disease infestation, as well as 

wildlife and recreation needs. The State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs of 

the Forest Service promote the health and sustainability of the nation’s private forest resources by providing technical and cost-sharing assistance to landowners to 

support voluntary stewardship of state and private forestlands. Conservation districts are key partners with both the Forest Service and state foresters in carrying 

out the S&PF programs. 

The Forest Stewardship Program is designed to assist nonindustrial private 

forestland owners to better manage and use their forest resources. Cost-shared with 

the states, the FSP provides technical assistance that enables landowners to manage lands for multiple uses. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Forest Stewardship Program Recommendation—$66 million 

Urban and Community Forestry helps to provide leadership for improving and expanding urban forest ecosystems in the nation’s 45,000 towns and cities. It also provides leadership for state of the art technology and grants to urban areas to support 

tree planting and urban tree protection actions. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Urban and Community Forestry Recommendation—$38 million 

Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management provides technical assistance for 

insect and disease suppression programs on both federal and private lands. As our 

population continues to expand into rural America, Cooperative Fire Protection 

helps ensure cost-effective fire protection at the rural-urban interface. 

The Forest Legacy Program helps to protect forestlands under threat of conversion to nonforest uses. Economic Action Programs help rural communities develop 

and sustain locally driven natural-resource-based economies. Forest Resources and 

Information Analysis (FRIA) supports regional units that have responsibility for collecting and analyzing forest resource data to help guide management decisions. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Cooperative Lands Forest Health Management Recommendation.—

$31 million 

Fiscal Year 2004 Cooperative Fire Protection Recommendation—$31 million 

Fiscal Year 2004 Forest Legacy Program Recommendation—$91 million 

Fiscal Year 2004 Economic Action Programs Recommendation—$36.000 million 

The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill) repealed 

both the Stewardship Incentives Program and Forestry Incentives Program and established the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP). The purpose of FLEP is 

to encourage the long-term sustainability of nonindustrial private forest lands by assisting forestland owners in more actively managing those lands. FLEP is carried 

out through state foresters and provides resource management expertise, financial 

and educational programs assistance. Funded through the Commodity Credit Corporation at $100 million through 2007, the Office of Management and Budget will 

apportion funds annually. Conservation districts urge the subcommittee to allow full 

implementation of FLEP. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

As a result of management decisions made in past decades that resulted in unnatural suppression of fires on public lands, large acreages of forest and rangeland 

have become extraordinarily dense and overloaded with fuels, resulting in fires that 
374

no longer burn at natural temperatures or rates. These catastrophic fires are dangerous to fight, difficult to control, and, rather than renewing forests, they destroy 

them. The President’s Healthy Forests Initiative, which includes components of several S&PF programs, as well as Wildland Fire Management activities, is a new approach to address these issues. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Wildland Fire Management Recommendation—$1.8 billion 

The 2002 Farm Bill also established the Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program to help focus the federal role in promoting firefighting efficiency, 

to augment federal wildfire protection projects, expand outreach and education programs and to help establish defensible wildfire buffers around communities and private homes. The program, authorized at $35 million annually, is implemented 

through state foresters. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Community and Private Land Fire Assistance Program Recommendation—$35 million 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Fish and Wildlife resource concerns are significant throughout the nation. With 

growing human population dwindling land and water habitats, the need for active 

resource management programs grows with each passing year. 

The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program offers technical and financial assistance to private landowners to voluntarily restore wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitats on their land. The program emphasizes the re-establishment of native 

vegetation and ecological communities for the benefit of fish and wildlife while meeting the needs and desires of private landowners. Conservation districts are major 

partners in the program, raising matching funds and sponsoring more than 900 wetland restoration projects. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program Recommendation—$39 

million 

The Private Stewardship Grants Program provides grants and other assistance on 

a competitive basis to individuals and groups engaged in local, private, and voluntary conservation efforts that benefit federally listed, proposed, or candidate species, or other at-risk species. The Landowner Incentive Program provides financial 

incentives to encourage landowners to help protect and conserve rare species on 

their lands. Established in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations process as part of the 

Cooperative Conservation Initiative, both programs are flexible and are open to all 

private landowners who have a desire to voluntarily manage for rare species on 

their land. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Private Stewardship Grants Program Recommendation—$10 million 

Fiscal Year 2004 Landowner Incentive Program Recommendation—$50 million 

The Ecological Services Program (Endangered Species and Habitat Conservation) 

works in partnership with public agencies, private organizations and landowners 

and operators with the goal of reducing threats to declining species. Its consultation 

and recovery elements include a wide range of management options designed to protect species while still allowing private economic development to proceed. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Endangered Species Recommendation—$130 million 

Fiscal Year 2004 Habitat Conservation Recommendation—$85 million 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes are funded through the National Wildlife Refuge Fund 

and are designed to offset revenue lost by localities when refuge acquisition results 

in land being removed from tax rolls. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Recommendation—$50 million 

The Coastal Program focuses the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s efforts in bays, 

estuaries and watersheds around the U.S. coastline. The purpose of the Coastal Program is to conserve fish and wildlife and their habitats to support healthy coastal 

ecosystems. The Service provides funding through the program to 16 high priority 

coastal ecosystems. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Coastal Program Recommendation—$12 million. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and associated program provides assistance to conserve wetland ecosystems and waterfowl and the other migratory birds and fish and wildlife that depend upon wetlands. Through voluntary partnerships, federal funding leverages non-federal funds for projects that focus on re-
375

storing wetlands and acquiring wetlands from willing sellers to be managed for 

wildlife conservation by private organizations or state and federal agencies. 

Fiscal Year 2004 North American Wetlands Conservation Fund Recommendation—

$50 million 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers 262 million of America’s 

public lands, located primarily in 12 Western States. BLM’s mission, sustaining the 

health, diversity and productivity of public lands, becomes more challenging each 

year as populations and pressures on the resource base grow rapidly in these states. 

BLM’s Payments in Lieu of Taxes are designed to offset revenue lost by localities 

when federal land acquisition results in land being removed from tax rolls. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Payments in Lieu of Taxes Recommendation—$200 million 

The agency’s Soil, Water and Air; Range Management; Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat accounts and Challenge Cost Share Partnership are each aimed at improving the 

health of landscapes and watersheds and to manage, protect and restore important 

fish, wildlife and grazing habitats. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Soil, Water and Air—$36 million 

Fiscal Year 2004 Range Management Recommendation—$75 million 

Fiscal Year 2004 Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat Recommendation—$38 million 

Fiscal Year 2004 Challenge Cost Share Partnership Recommendation—$21 million 

Forestry programs within BLM target conducting commercial timber thinning 

sales and management activities to improve the condition and productivity of forests. OR&CA Grant Lands funds target enhanced management activities on environmentally sensitive public lands in Oregon and California. 

Fiscal Year 2004 OR&CA Grant Lands Recommendation—$114 million 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Water needs are an increasing resource concern, especially in the Western United 

States. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the lead federal agency for supplying water to agricultural producers and others in the seventeen Western states. 

Reclamation initiated the Water Conservation Field Services Program (WCFSP) in 

1997 to encourage the efficient use of water on federal projects, assist water districts 

develop and implement effective water conservation plans, and complement and 

support other federal, state, and local conservation program efforts. WCFSP is designed to provide technical and financial assistance in conservation planning, education, demonstration of innovative conservation technologies and implementation of 

effective conservation measures. 

The President’s budget request includes a new, $11.0 million Western Water Initiative to help develop solutions to the increasing demands for limited water resources-especially in the West. The initiative is directed at enhancing Reclamation’s 

efficiency and performance in carrying out its core mission of delivering water and 

power in an environmentally sound and cost efficient manner. The initiative has 

four key elements intended to enhance water management and prevent crisis-level 

water conflicts in the West. 

Fiscal Year 2004 Water Conservation Field Services Program Recommendation—$20 

million 

Fiscal Year 2004 Western Water Initiative Recommendation—$11 million 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our recommendations to the subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity 

to present The Nature Conservancy’s recommendations for fiscal year 2004 appropriations. We understand and appreciate the fact that the Subcommittee’s ability to 

fund programs within its jurisdiction is limited by our current national emergency. 

The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit organization dedicated to 

the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 
376

1,000,000 individual members and 1,900 corporate associates. We have programs in 

all 50 states and in 30 foreign countries. We have protected more than 15 million 

acres in the United States and Canada and more than 83 million acres with local 

partner organization globally. The Conservancy owns and manages 1,340 preserves 

throughout the United States—the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in 

the world. Sound science and strong partnerships with public and private landowners to achieve tangible and lasting results characterize our conservation programs. 

The Nature Conservancy believes that the conservation community has an obligation to take action as well as raise awareness. Private efforts alone, however, will 

not suffice. Federal investments in conservation, through federal land and fish and 

wildlife programs, and as a partner with state and local governments and the private sector, are essential to conserve the nation’s biodiversity. 

STEWARDSHIP OF PUBLIC LANDS

The nation’s federal lands require enhanced stewardship funding. Many of our 

ecosystems are extremely degraded, particularly by invasive species and poor fire 

management, and require substantial investments to restore proper ecosystem function. 

National Fire Plan 

The President’s fiscal year 2004 budget includes a substantial increase in suppression funding and a very small increase in hazardous fuels reduction funding. We 

believe that the smartest and most cost-efficient way to address the threat of ecologically destructive fires is through long-term restoration. Continuing to spend 

money on suppression, at the expense of restoration to prevent destructive fires creates a vicious cycle causing more need for suppression monies. We believe that Congress should: (1) increase total funding for Hazardous Fuel Reduction to $480 million, with an emphasis on funding for long-term, large-scale hazardous fuels reduction projects with rigorous adaptive management plans; and (2) restore total Rehabilitation and Restoration programs to $82.7 million, the fiscal year 2002 level, with 

a portion of the funding targeted at expanding restoration ecology expertise. Despite 

one of the worst fire seasons in history, the Restoration and Rehabilitation activity 

was zeroed out for the Forest Service for fiscal year 2004, and reduced for DOI. 

Without adequate post-emergency restoration following unnaturally severe fires, the 

result is increased damaged caused by invasive species such as cheat grass—including increased risk of future fires. As part of the restoration funds, we recommend 

$10 million for development and production of additional native plant materials 

through private/public partnerships. 

Invasive Species 

Next to habitat loss, invasion by non-native species is the most pervasive threat 

to native biodiversity on public lands. The Conservancy supports the interagency 

National Invasive Species Cross-Cut Performance Budget as a start for accelerating 

prevention, early detection, rapid response, control and management and restoration. This multi-pronged approach emphasizes private-public partnerships and interagency collaboration and is essential if we are to reduce the threat of invasive species to the nation’s lands and waters. The Conservancy supports the President’s requested funding increases of $9 million for BLM, BOR, NPS and USGS and $6.6 

million for the Forest Service for enhanced invasive species management by federal 

land management agencies. 

ACQUISITION OF FEDERAL LAND

The Nature Conservancy applauded action by the Appropriations Committees to 

establish and fully fund the Land Conservation, Preservation, and Infrastructure 

Improvement program established in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. The Conservancy was disappointed that the fiscal year 2003 Interior appropriations bill did 

not continue the commitment to implementing this historic 6-year conservation 

achievement. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to fully fund this program at its 

fiscal year 2004 level of $1.56 billion. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

The Nature Conservancy strongly supports continued federal acquisition of highpriority biologically important land and urges the Congress to provide funding for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at a far more robust level than the 

President’s request. The Nature Conservancy proposes funding of 44 biologically 

rich land acquisition projects totaling $103,050,000. Priorities include completing 

multi-year projects to transform Great Sand Dunes National Monument into the na-
377

tion’s 57th National Park, expansion of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and protection of major inholdings at Florida’s St. Marks NWR and Arkansas’ Cache River 

NWR. A number of projects, including the Red Rock Lakes NWR, Northern 

Tallgrass Prairie NWR and BLM’s Henry’s Lake ACEC and Upper Snake /South 

Fork Snake River projects, rely upon conservation easements to achieve important 

conservation objectives while maintaining the integrity of working landscapes. We 

also encourage the Subcommittee to maintain the programmatic integrity of the 

LWCF and use it only for its legislatively authorized uses. We urge the subcommittee to provide at least the level of funding requested by the Administration 

for the state-side of the LWCF. Overwhelmingly successful ballot measures continue 

to demonstrate the substantial need and demand in states and counties across the 

country to acquire land for conservation and recreation purposes. 

Forest Legacy 

This program identifies and protects ecologically important forestland that is 

threatened by conversion to non-forest uses. It is an increasing popular and successful model of a non-regulatory conservation approach based on partnerships between 

federal and state governments and private landowners. This program has delivered 

measurable conservation results at sites such as the Bar J Ranch in Utah and the 

John Tully Wildlife Management Area in Tennessee, while maintaining sustainable 

public use of these lands. Building on that success requires a significant funding increase. We strongly support a $150 million appropriation for this program, including 

such priority projects as Maine’s Machias River Project, Broxton Rocks in Georgia 

and Dragon Run in Virginia. 

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES AND REFUGE REVENUE SHARING

Programs provide payments to counties where land has been taken off the local 

property tax roles and put into federal ownership. In some counties, protection of 

significant natural resources impacts the tax base necessary to fund local government services, including schools and public safety. We urge the Committee to provide full funding for these programs and honor the federal government’s commitment to impacted communities. 

SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION

Sound decisions on public and private land acquisition and management must be 

based on high-quality scientific information. The Conservancy’s work on the ground 

long has been guided by information from the non-profit organization NatureServe 

and its state natural heritage program members. We support increase of $5 million 

for the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Biological Information Infrastructure program and encourage an allocation of $500,000 to support the scientific information 

management and dissemination work of NatureServe and its state agency partners. 

We also support an increase of $2 million in BLM’s budget for long-term resource 

monitoring to measure the effects of increased energy development on other resources. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAMS

The Conservancy supports a funding level of $100 million for the FWS’s Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, an effective and flexible tool for building cooperative, 

voluntary partnerships between federal, state, and local governments to protect and 

recover critically imperiled species. The requested increase reflects the importance 

and unmet public funding needs of collaborative conservation strategies to protect 

critically rare species on non-federal land, and state and local acquisition of habitat 

necessary for the survival of listed and candidate species. We support and appreciate the Subcommittee’s long-standing funding of $2 million annually to Southern 

California’s Natural Community Conservation Planning program. 

The Nature Conservancy proposes significant increases for the FWS’s ESA implementation programs. Funding increases would enhance the Service’s ability to provide important incentive-based, non-regulatory programs that assist private landowners in protecting species. $12 million for Candidate Conservation would expand 

this innovative program and permit more effective monitoring and implementation 

of existing agreements. $12 million for Listing would enable the Service to expand 

its evaluation of imperiled species for listing, a critical action that guarantees certain protections under the law, including the authority to purchase habitat. $55 million for Consultation/Habitat Conservation Planning would permit the Service to respond to the dramatic increase in the use of HCPs. $75 million for Recovery would 

permit the development, monitoring, and implementation of recovery plans and actions for a rapidly increasing number of listed species. We also urge support for the 
378

Cooperative Recovery Program for the four endangered fish species in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin by requesting $700,000 of resource management funds for the 

FWS, along with $444,000 for operation and maintenance of the Ouray National 

Fish Hatchery. 

STATE AND TRIBAL WILDLIFE GRANTS

The Conservancy strongly supports this important and developing program and recommends funding of $125 million. We believe the development of state comprehensive wildlife conservation plans will set the foundation to direct future resources for state conservation objectives and encourage the states to make full use 

of the best existing scientific information, including natural heritage data. 

COOPERATIVE CONSERVATION INITIATIVE AND PRIVATE LANDOWNER PROGRAMS

Private lands provide a portion of the habitat for at least two-thirds of all federally listed species. The Administration’s Cooperative Conservation Initiative supports innovative ways to meet conservation needs of private landowners, local communities, states and the federal government through enhancing the capacity of federal agencies for innovative conservation partnerships. 

Challenge Cost Share 

We support increased funding for the BLM, $23 million, FWS, $11.9 million, and NPS, $21 million. Challenge Cost Share programs leverage appropriated dollars 

through 1:1 matches with State and private partners to implement important restoration and resource protection projects. Partners for Fish and Wildlife. We support 

an increase for this program to $50 million. It provides important technical and financial assistance to private landowners and other partners to protect, restore and 

enhance habitat for fish and wildlife species. The fact that more than 2,000 private 

landowners are on a waiting list to use the program demonstrates the demand for 

this cost-sharing program. Landowner Incentive Program and Private Stewardship 

Grants. Last year, Congress funded these new programs to facilitate private wildlife 

conservation efforts. We urge the Subcommittee to favorably consider the Administration’s request for $40 million and $10 million for these programs. 

PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVES

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 

The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is an excellent example of a program 

that effectively leverages conservation benefits. Federal support to NFWF continues 

to yield a return of nearly $3 for every single taxpayer dollar. Since its creation in 

1984, NFWF has supported over 5,756 grants and leveraged over 230 million federal 

dollars for more than 700 million dollars in on-the-ground conservation. We recommend appropriations of $14 million for the USFWS, $4 million for the BLM and 

$4 million for the Forest Service. 

North American Wetlands Conservation Fund and Joint Venture program 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Fund (NAWCF) supports implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and other initiatives 

that protect, restore, or enhance habitat for wetland-dependent migratory birds. 

Working with a variety of partners in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, it 

matches federal dollars at more than 2:1. The Conservancy urges $55 million for 

this extraordinarily successful program. The Conservancy is also supportive of Congress’ and the Administration’s continuing commitment and support for the Joint 

Ventures. In the fiscal year 2003 Appropriation Act, Congress recognized the need 

for increasing support for Joint Ventures and urged the Service to request additional funding in the fiscal year 2004 budget The Conservancy is pleased that Joint 

Venture funding has been increased and supports the Service’s request for $10.4 

million for the Joint Venture program. 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund 

We support funding for this new and promising program at its authorized level 

of $5 million. Significantly, it can secure conservation gains by leveraging partnership investments throughout the Western Hemisphere. The Service should continue 

to administer this grant program through its division of bird habitat conservation, 

following the model of the North American wetlands conservation program. 

INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS

The Conservancy recommends a total of $14 million to the programs identified in 

the FWS’ Multinational Species Conservation Fund. We propose, however, that the 
379

Committee appropriate $9 million for the Rhinoceros/tiger, Elephants and Great 

Ape funds and appropriate separately $5 million to the Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Conservation Fund. The U.S. Forest Service’s International Programs address biodiversity challenges to forests worldwide. An increase of funding to $10 million 

would enhance current efforts to protect migratory birds. The NPS Office of International Affairs should be funded at $2 million so that the National Park Service—

global leaders in conservation—can expand its collaborative activities to assist international partners in creating and managing parks and other protected areas. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy’s comments on 

the Interior budget.

FISCAL YEAR 2004 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROJECTS RECOMMENDED BY THE 

NATURE CONSERVANCY 

LWCF project TNC request 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT: 

Henry’s Lake ACEC, ID ............................................................................................................................ $1,000,000 

Otay Mountain/Kuchamaa HCP,CA .......................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Santa Rosa/San Jacinto Mountains NM, CA ........................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Upper Snake/South Fork Snake River, ID ............................................................................................... 2,000,000

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................. 7,000,000

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE: 

Alaska Pennisula NWR (Pavlof Bay), AK ................................................................................................ 750,000 

Baca NWR, CO ........................................................................................................................................ 9,000,000 

Cache River NWR, AR ............................................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

Cahaba River NWR, AL ........................................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Cape May NWR, NJ .................................................................................................................................. 2,000,000 

Dakota Tallgrass Prairie WMA, ND/SD .................................................................................................... 1,000,000 

Key West NWR, FL ................................................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Lower Hatchie NWR, TN .......................................................................................................................... 1,800,000 

Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR, TX .......................................................................................................... 2,300,000 

Massasoit NWR, MA ................................................................................................................................ 530,000 

Ninigret NWR, RI ..................................................................................................................................... 825,000 

Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR, MN/IA .................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Red River NWR, LA .................................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Red Rock Lakes NWR, MT ....................................................................................................................... 750,000 

Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Easement Program, MT ................................................................. 1,000,000 

San Diego NWR, CA ................................................................................................................................ 4,000,000 

San Joaquin NWR, CA ............................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

St. Marks NWR, FL .................................................................................................................................. 1,600,000 

St. Vincent NWR, FL ................................................................................................................................ 2,250,000 

Stewart McKinney NWR, CT ..................................................................................................................... 1,500,000

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................. 45,030,000

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: 

Big Thicket National Preserve, TX .......................................................................................................... 5,400,000 

Fire Island National Seashore, NY .......................................................................................................... 1,500,000 

Great Sand Dunes National Monument, CO ........................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Hawaii Volcanoes NP (Kahuku Ranch), HI ............................................................................................. 6,500,000 

Obed Wild and Scenic River, TN ............................................................................................................. 1,600,000 

Pinelands National Reserve, NJ .............................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, FL ..................................................................................... 2,500,000

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................. 22,500,000

U.S. FOREST SERVICE: 

Chattahoochee-Oconee NFs, GA .............................................................................................................. 2,500,000 

Chequamegon-Nicolet NF, WI .................................................................................................................. 4,500,000 

Delta NF, MS ........................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Francis Marion NF, SC ............................................................................................................................ 3,500,000 

Hoosier NF, IN ......................................................................................................................................... 1,750,000 

Los Padres NF, CA .................................................................................................................................. 3,000,000 

Monongahela NF, WV .............................................................................................................................. 1,800,000 

National Forests in Alabama, AL ............................................................................................................ 2,300,000 
380

FISCAL YEAR 2004 LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND PROJECTS RECOMMENDED BY THE 

NATURE CONSERVANCY—Continued

LWCF project TNC request 

Prescott NF, AZ ....................................................................................................................................... 900,000 

Shawnee NF, IL ....................................................................................................................................... 1,200,000 

Skagit River, WA ..................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Sumter NF, SC ......................................................................................................................................... 2,000,000 

Wenatchee NF (Tieton River), WA ........................................................................................................... 1,075,000

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................................. 28,525,000

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 103,055,000 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHERN FOREST ALLIANCE

The 26-million-acre Northern Forest stretching from Maine’s St. Croix River 

through New Hampshire and Vermont to the Adirondacks and Tug Hill in New 

York is a lifeline to millions of Americans. Clean air, clean water, wilderness and 

abundant wildlife are but a few of the gifts the forest offers to the 70 million people 

living within a day’s drive. The forest’s capacity to grow quality timber for highvalue manufacturing; to lure visitors with breathtaking displays of natural beauty; 

and to showcase a rich cultural and historical tradition are the cornerstones on 

which to build a robust regional economy. 

The Northern Forest Alliance is a coalition of more than 40 state, regional and 

national organizations dedicated to the protection and stewardship of the region. Together we represent the interests of more than one million people. On behalf of the 

Alliance I am submitting testimony in strong support of several Northern Forest 

Forest Legacy projects, a significant increase in funding for the Forest Legacy Program to at least $150 million, and for full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Also, as you know, in 2000 Congress approved Title VIII, the Conservation Trust Fund (Title VIII), which should be funded in fiscal year 2004 at $2.08 

billion, as originally authorized. It is critical for conservation efforts not only in our 

region but across the country that the array of programs included in this title be 

fully funded. 

THE CASE FOR SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED FUNDING FOR THE FOREST LEGACY PROGRAM

In recent years the number of compelling projects in need of funding under the 

Forest Legacy Program, along with its popularity, has grown exponentially. A major 

reason for the success of the program is that the conservation mechanisms available 

under the program are able to address a range of legitimate conservation needs of 

the 21st century: the program enables landowners to retain ownership of their land 

and continue to earn income from it; conserves open space, scenic lands, wildlife 

habitat, and clean water; and ensures continued opportunities for outdoor recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and hiking. In addition, with its minimum requirement of 25 percent non-federal matching funds, the program leverages 

state and private dollars to complement federal money, creating partnerships that 

have lasting value. 

Authorized by Congress in 1990, the Forest Legacy Program helps preserve working forestlands and protect critical resources. As our population grows and land values rise, many private productive forests are in danger of conversion to housing subdivisions or second-home development. The United States loses more than half a 

million acres of privately-owned timberland to development each year. These 

changes are impacting the economic integrity of our forest-based communities, and 

they are also limiting the amount of recreational open space and critical wildlife 

habitat we all enjoy. The Forest Legacy Program, administered by the U.S. Forest 

Service through grants to states, provides a mechanism and a small pot of federal 

funds for protecting forestland and the multiple benefits these lands provide. It is 

increasingly apparent, however, that the modest funds historically provided for this 

program, despite the increase in fiscal year 2003, is woefully inadequate to meet 

current and future projected demand. 

FOREST LEGACY SUPPORTS WORKING FORESTS

A central purpose of the Forest Legacy Program is to ensure the continuation of 

a traditional working forest rather than fragmentation and subdivision. Under a 
381

Forest Legacy easement, the landowner or other parties may continue to harvest 

timber according to the terms of the agreement. If a landowner chooses to sell the 

timber harvesting rights, they may do so, but under many existing Forest Legacy 

easements, the landowner has retained harvesting rights and agreed to specific language governing harvest methods. 

With a tradition of using the forest that goes back hundreds of years, Northern 

Forest residents are not eager to see the forest subdivided and the lakeshores built 

up. Converting woods to house lots puts an end to local forest dependent businesses 

ranging from timber and paper production to guiding and cultural tourism. Breaking up the forest disrupts wildlife and jeopardizes water quality. Private driveways 

and ‘‘No Trespassing’’ signs change the culture and character of the region. And so 

local residents have banded together to identify the most important places that are 

for sale. They’re working with state agencies, legislatures, non-profits and private 

donors to protect more than 800,000 acres in the Northern Forest from development 

this year. 

But they cannot do it on their own; they need assistance from the Forest Legacy 

Program to realize their goals. To meet growing national demands, the Forest Legacy Program should be funded at $150 million in fiscal year 2004. In the Northern 

Forest, we’re depending on a $38 million investment this year to realize the potential of this public-private collaboration for protecting our intact forests. It’s an opportunity that cannot be missed, for the sake of conserving a landscape, a regional 

economy, and a cherished way of life. 

FOREST LEGACY SUPPORTS PRIVATE LANDOWNERS’ RIGHTS

Through conservation easements, a landowner can voluntarily sell development 

rights, continue to generate economic activity, and maintain a traditional landscape 

for the next generation to enjoy. Through the purchase of conservation easements, 

a landowner’s private property rights are being protected. It is the landowner who 

decides whether or not to limit development of their property, and they are fairly 

compensated for the rights purchased. 

FOREST LEGACY PROMOTES PARTNERSHIPS AND LEVERAGES FUNDS

The Forest Legacy Program offers the opportunity for the federal government to 

work in partnership with states, local communities and private landowners to ensure that the multiple benefits found on forest lands—economic sustainability, wildlife habitat protection, and recreational opportunities—are secured for future generations. Since its inception, the program has proven extremely popular but unable 

to meet the demand across the nation. In fiscal year 2003 states submitted funding 

requests totaling over $300 million in Forest Legacy funding, yet less than a third 

was appropriated. In addition, several other states are in the process of enrolling 

in the program in the near future, increasing the demand for funding. 

FOREST LEGACY IS A POPULAR AND GROWING PROGRAM

34 States are currently enrolled in the Forest Legacy Program, and several other 

states are currently developing plans for enrollment in the program or considering 

beginning the planning process. 

Congressional support for the program has steadily grown, with funding levels increasing from $7 million in fiscal year 1999 to $30 million in fiscal year 2000 to $60 

million in fiscal year 2001, $65 million in fiscal year 2002 and over $70 million this 

year. Significantly the Administration has requested more than $90 million for the 

program for fiscal year 2004. Even at this level, however, several properties being 

offered for protection by willing landowners and states through the Forest Legacy 

Program could not be fully funded and will have to be carried over to the following 

year. The Northeast in particular has an abundance of worthwhile projects and documented needs for Forest Legacy funding which will go unmet unless Forest Legacy 

is significantly increased or other sources of funding are identified. 

The Forest Legacy Program must be funded at $150 million annually on a dependable basis to meet the nation’s need for conserving large tracts of forest with 

easements. Legacy is an essential tool in land conservation because it enables a public/private partnership for protecting the many public benefits of large tracts of forest land. It is clear that Forest Legacy will play an important role in completing 

the emerging conservation projects in the Northern Forest.
382

SUMMARY OF NORTHERN FOREST FISCAL YEAR 2004 LEGACY PROJECTS AND FUNDING REQUESTS 

[Dollars in millions] 

Acreage Request Project cost 

Maine: 

Machias River ......................................................................................... 32,000 $2.00 $15.00 

Tumbledown/Mt. Blue ............................................................................. 30,000 3.00 15.00

Bald Mountain ........................................................................................ 10,000 1.30 4.00

Katahdin Forest ....................................................................................... 241,000 8.00 50.00 

Northern Tier: Boundary Mtns. to Nahmakanta ..................................... 500,000 5.00 35.00 

New Hampshire: 13-Mile Woods ...................................................................... 5,300 2.00 3.80 

Vermont: 

Monadnock to Victory Basin ................................................................... 3,524 1.50 1.90 

Mallory Brook .......................................................................................... 490 0.25 0.40 

Chittenden County Uplands .................................................................... 8,515 4.15 4.15 

New York: 

Domtar-Sable Highlands ......................................................................... 105,000 5.00 8.50

Moose River Corridor ............................................................................... 5,600 2.00 9.70

Headwaters of the Hudson—Tahawus ................................................... 11,200 3.50 7.00

Property Mileage Request: 

Vermont: Long Trail ................................................................................ 2.5 0.20 ......................

LWCF—STATE PROGRAM

Vermont workers whose employer had closed its plant in Island Pond. With this 

and other aid, a group of employees has started a new business, which now produces its own furniture line. In New York, the same program has helped the community of Tupper Lake establish a Natural History Center of the Adirondacks, a 

focal point for future nature based tourism in the area. Significant funding is needed nationally and in the Northeast Region to keep these valuable, results-oriented 

programs active in Northern Forest communities. 

AGENCY/PROGRAM REGION REQUEST

ECONOMIC PROGRAMS 

[In millions of dollars] 

Program Amount 

USDA State and Private Forestry Division: 

Forest Land Enhancement Program National ................................................................................................. 22 

Economic Action Programs Northeast ............................................................................................................. 10 

USDA Rural Development Division: Rural Business Enterprise and Opportunity Grants Northern Forest States .. 4 

NEW PARTNERSHIPS

Without a new partnership with the federal government, however, even these 

landmark state funding programs cannot meet the conservation challenges in the 

Northern Forest. Millions of acres of forest, clean rivers, and pristine lakes need to 

be protected in this most densely populated part of our country. We are poised now 

on the cusp of an historic opportunity to protect the cherished landscape of the 

Northern Forest, a mainstay of the economy, ecology and culture of the Northeast. 

We challenge Congress to fund the Forest Legacy Program at a minimum level 

of $150 million, to fully fund the Land & Water Conservation Fund at $900 million 

annually, and the Conservation Trust Fund at $2.08 billion to meet the conservation 

needs of the 21st century. 

Mr. Chairman, as we begin the 21st Century we are faced with an historic opportunity to conserve places of extraordinary natural and public value. The work of protecting and caring for these special places must be a partnership that engages government, businesses and non-profit organizations. But federal funds, leadership and 

expertise are a critical element of this partnership. We urge the continued commitment of Congress to work with the people of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and 

New York to protect these irreplaceable resources. Thank you for considering our 

request. 
383

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SIERRA NEVADA ALLIANCE

Mr. Chairman, the Sierra Nevada Alliance (the Alliance) would like to thank you 

for the opportunity to comment and make recommendations on the fiscal year 2004 

Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. I write these 

comments on behalf of the Alliance, a 10-year-old organization dedicated to protecting and restoring the natural values of the Sierra Nevada while promoting sustainable communities. Our top priorities include: 

—Continuation and full funding for the Interior portion of the Conservation Trust 

Fund (Land Conservation, Preservation and Infrastructure Improvement Fund) 

at $1.56 billion; 

—Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $450 million for Land and Water Conservation Fund Federal land acquisition; and 

—Within the Conservation Trust Fund, $150 million for the Forest Legacy program. 

We also urge you to maintain the integrity of both the Conservation Trust Fund, 

and of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Adequate funding for the programs 

discussed below is vital to protect the Sierra Nevada’s wild areas and environmental 

values. 

The Sierra Nevada range covers 18 counties and two States, California and Nevada. Our range has over 50 percent of the species of California, supplies over 60 

percent of California’s water and much of Nevada’s, and is a world renown destination for recreation. Much of the value of our region and its ability to fuel the Sierra 

economy is due to the conservation of wildlife, recreation, and natural treasures. 

Consequently, funding provided by the Subcommittee for Federal conservation programs is of vital importance to every resident and visitor of the Sierra Nevada. 

PLEASE PROVIDE FULL FUNDING FOR THE CONSERVATION TRUST FUND

We respectfully urge the Subcommittee to provide full funding for its portion of 

the Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) at $1.56 billion for fiscal year 2004. The Conservation Trust Fund was established by Congress in 2000 to address the chronic 

underfunding of our nation’s conservation, recreation, wildlife, and cultural treasures’ needs. 

We thank the Subcommittee for providing support for CTF programs under the 

jurisdiction of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. However, we are troubled by the drop of over $400 million in total 

CTF funding in the final fiscal year 2003 Omnibus appropriations bill, and by the 

cut of nearly $600 million in the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget. We strongly 

urge you to maintain Congress’ commitment to the CTF for fiscal year 2004 by providing the dedicated funding level of $1.56 billion for Interior appropriation’s programs. 

Additionally, Congress should reject the proposal in the President’s budget to 

erode the fund’s original purposes by cutting funding for its authorized programs, 

such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund and State and Tribal Wildlife 

grants. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund.—Within the CTF, we urge the Subcommittee 

to reject the Administration’s proposal for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF), and instead to provide at least $650 million for LWCF’s original, authorized programs, including $450 million for Federal Land Acquisition. LWCF has been 

a premier tool to fund two things: Federal land acquisition and a State assistance 

program. This year, the Administration masked cuts of over 50 percent in real land 

acquisition by adding in new programs. Funding in the President’s Budget for National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and 

U.S. Forest Service land acquisition is cut from a combined total of $429 million enacted in fiscal year 2002 to $187 million proposed for fiscal year 2004. Americans 

have long relied on Federal land acquisition to protect and complete its parks, forests and refuges, and the Administration’s cuts would result in smaller, more degraded lands and fewer recreation experiences. 

Federal acquisition of these lands is necessary to address grave, immediate environmental threats with the potential for permanent damage, and to help protect and 

restore wildlands of significance (e.g. those with rare ecosystems, endangered species, and/or other special qualities). 

ADDITIONAL AGENCY APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

Fund U.S. Forest Service Conservation Programs.—The U.S. Forest Service is the 

largest single land owner in the Sierra Nevada, owning 38 percent of all Sierra 

lands. These Forest Service lands provide a vast array of popular recreational oppor-
384

tunities for millions of Americans. Outdoor recreation contributes more to the Sierra 

Nevada economy than any other use of the National Forest System. Despite this, 

many important conservation programs that help maintain Forest Service lands’ 

recreational and ecological components are chronically underfunded, while programs 

that harm our national forests have traditionally received too much funding. We 

urge the Subcommittee to provide $76 million for Wildlife, Fish, Watershed and Atmospheric Sciences Research, approximately a $25 million increase over the fiscal 

year 2004 President’s Budget request. Here in the Sierra, our aquatic ecosystems 

are the most impaired systems in the range and further assessments of our watersheds are greatly needed. We also recommend $285 million for the Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness Program, an increase of $30 million, as well as $200 million 

for the Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management Program, an increase of $65 million. 

Provide Funding for the purchase of California Wilderness Inholdings on National 

Forest Service Land.—There are about 25,000 acres of inholdings in National Forest 

Wilderness Areas within California. Numerous inholdings exist in the Sierra Nevada. Each year, numerous private inholdings are offered for sale by the landowner. 

It is essential that the Forest Service acquire these lands as they become available 

to protect the ecological integrity of the wilderness areas. For fiscal year 2004, we 

are requesting $2,5000,000 to purchase available inholdings. There is a pressing 

need for consistent funding for these forest inholdings as they become available. Annual funding allocated specifically for critical forest inholdings would allow the Forest Service to purchase land on a prioritized need basis to prevent development of 

lands and protect areas of significant ecological value. 

We are also concerned that the proposed fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget’s for the Forest Service Research and Development account falls $8 million short of the 

$260 million needed to prevent the further erosion of scientific capability within the 

Forest Service. Additionally, the Alliance strongly urges the Subcommittee to restore funding to the Rehabilitation and Restoration program at the fiscal year 2001 

level of $142 million; and to fund Deferred Maintenance and Infrastructure Improvement at the fiscal year 2002 level of $60 million. These two funds are critically 

important for mitigating environmental impacts after severe wildland fire events 

and for reducing the $8 billion road maintenance backlog. The Sierra has a history 

of suppressing fires and future wildland fire events will occur. It is imperative that 

the Forest Service have the resources to address these severe fires, ideally pro-actively as well as in response. Therefore, we request that you avoid endorsing the 

President’s proposal to reduce the number of wildland firefighting crews and engines by 53 percent, but instead at least double the wildland fire budget to prepare 

for a fire season similar to 2000 or 2002. 

Fund National Park Service Protection of Natural and Cultural Resources.—The 

Sierra Nevada Alliance is grateful for the continued support of the National Resource Challenge, but an increase of $12.4 million is needed to bring its funding 

level to $80 million. As a member of Americans for Our National Parks, we recommend an additional $178 million over the enacted fiscal year 2003 levels in Park 

Operations to adequately protect the natural and cultural resources of the National 

Park system, bringing the total NPS Operations appropriation to $1.63 billion. In 

the Sierra we have both Yosemite National Park and Kings Canyon/Sequoia National Parks. Both these heavily visited parks need funding to protect the natural 

resources and ensure visitors for years to come enjoy the same beautiful and inspiring environment we do today. 

Fund Protection of Bureau of Land Management Lands.—In the Sierra Nevada, 

11 percent of our lands are managed by BLM, including numerous wilderness areas 

and wilderness study areas. The President’s fiscal year 2004 Budget proposes $43 

million for the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS), including an increase of $2.7 million for operations. This funding increase is vital to protect the 

these important lands. 

For BLM overall, the Alliance recommends an increase of $2 million for Resource 

Management Planning above the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget request of $48 

million, to ensure effective public participation and outreach for new planning 

starts. 

We also endorse the Interior Department’s multi-agency Invasive Species Initiative, and urge the Subcommittee to provide the full $9 million increase for its programs proposed in the fiscal year 2004 President’s Budget. In the Sierra, numerous 

land trusts and watershed councils have identified significant problems with 

invasive weeds which require support for their eradication to restore the natural 

ecosystem. 

In summary, the Sierra Nevada is a unique and valued region of this nation, and 

full and adequate funding of Federal conservation programs is necessary to protect 
385

and restore these vibrant lands. Given that over 50 percent of our Sierra lands are 

federally owned and managed, significant cuts to the programs mentioned above 

have considerable negative impacts for the Sierra. I strongly encourage your committee to do everything in its ability to fully fund the conservation programs mentioned above, for the sake of millions of Americans and future generations. Please 

provide $450 million for Federal LWCF, and $2.08 billion for the Conservation Trust 

Fund. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS

The Society of American Foresters (SAF) represents more than 17,000 forestry 

professionals. SAF’s primary objective is to advance the science, technology, education, and practice of professional forestry for the benefit of society. We offer this 

testimony for the fiscal year 2004 budget for the Department of Interior and Related 

Agencies. With the understandable restriction on the length of this testimony, it is 

difficult to provide the in-depth analysis we would normally provide The table below 

details those items for which we offer suggestions that differ significantly from the 

Administration’s proposal.

[In thousands of dollars] 

Discretionary appropriations Fiscal year 2003 enacted 

Fiscal year 2004 

proposed SAF request 

Forest Inventory and Analysis 1 ................................................................. 55.1 43.3 67.7

State and Private Forestry: 

Forest Health Management—Federal ............................................... 50.0 44.5 50.0

Forest Health Management—Cooperative ........................................ 30.8 25.1 31.0

Emerging Pest and Pathogens Fund ................................................ ........................ 12.0 20.0

State Fire Assistance ........................................................................ 25.5 25.4 28.0

Volunteer Fire Assistance ................................................................. 5.0 5.0 6.0

Community and Private Land Fire Assistance ................................. ........................ ........................ 35.0

Forest Stewardship ........................................................................... 32.0 65.6 50.0

Watershed Forestry Assistance ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 16.0

Forest Legacy Program ..................................................................... 68.4 90.8 100.0

Urban and Community Forestry ........................................................ 36.0 37.9 40.0

Economic Action Programs ............................................................... 26.3 ........................ 28.7

International Forestry ........................................................................ 5.7 5.1 6.0

Total .............................................................................................. 284.7 315.8 410.7

National Forest System: 

Land Management Planning ............................................................. 71.7 70.9 72.2

Forest Products ................................................................................. 263.6 268.0 271.1

Expedited Consultation ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 15.0

Total .............................................................................................. 1,353.4 1,369.6 1,374.0

Wildland Fire Management: 

Preparedness ..................................................................................... 612.0 609.7 640.0

Fire Operations .................................................................................. 418.0 604.6 605.0

Hazardous Fuels ................................................................................ 226.6 231.4 262.1

Rehabilitation and Restoration ......................................................... 7.1 ........................ 63.0

Fire Research and Development ....................................................... 21.2 21.4 23.0

Joint Fire Sciences Program ............................................................. 7.9 8.0 ........................

Forest Health Management—Cooperative ........................................ 9.9 5.0 5.0

Economic Action Programs ............................................................... 5.0 ........................ 12.5

State Fire Assistance ........................................................................ 46.2 46.5 58.0

Volunteer Fire Assistance ................................................................. 8.2 8.2 10.0

Total .............................................................................................. 1,371.0 1,541.8 1,695.6

Capital Improvement and Maintenance: 

Facilities ............................................................................................ 202.3 200.9 202.3

Roads ................................................................................................ 231.3 245.4 245.4

Infrastructure Improvement .............................................................. 45.6 ........................ 24.0
386

[In thousands of dollars] 

Discretionary appropriations Fiscal year 2003 enacted 

Fiscal year 2004 

proposed SAF request 

Total .............................................................................................. 548.5 524.6 550.0

Land Acquisition/L&WCF Total ................................................................... 132.9 44.1 50.0

Other Appropriations .................................................................................. 10.3 10.0 10.3

1 This includes funding normally allocated to S&PF, NFS, and Research. We propose creating a separate line item for FIA. 

Forest and Rangeland Research.—The forest health issues we are currently facing 

as a nation require an increased emphasis on research to achieve solutions. Increases in funding will help increase capacity. The Agency should also look to innovative partnerships with universities to further leverage research funding. 

Forest Inventory and Analysis.—The FIA program provides a clear understanding 

of forest resources, integrating data across all ownership boundaries. This information is crucial to ensuring forest management decisions are based in fact. We are 

concerned with the Administration’s proposed cuts to the FIA program. To achieve 

the mandates of the 1998 Farm bill, producing an overall assessment of the nation’s 

forest resources in a timely manner, FIA program funding must be set at a minimum of $67.7 million for fiscal year 2004. We also propose creating a separate line 

item for the FIA program. There is confusion in funding FIA through various line 

items. Consolidation will provide a complete understanding of all funds available for 

the FIA program. 

Fire Research.—Last year’s wildfires burnt over 7.1 million acres, we must learn 

from these fires through research and transfer findings to those in the field. Improvements in fire management and proper implementation of the National Fire 

Plan can only be realized with scientific discovery, validation, and application supplied by critical research programs in partnership with all sectors of forestry research including colleges, universities, and private sector researchers. 

State and Private Forestry.—S&PF programs are a vital component of the sustainable management of the nation’s forests. These programs focus on more than half 

of the nation’s forest land, which supply clean water and air, recreational opportunities, and forest products. Development pressures are the primary threat to the sustainability of private forests. S&PF programs provide tools to help the 9.9 million 

landowners resist development pressures and sustain their forests for the nation’s 

benefit. 

Community and Private Land Fire Assistance.—We support full funding for this 

program as authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. The program enables communities to 

coordinate wildfire protection planning as well as undertake special restoration/hazardous fuel reduction projects, combat invasive species and build local markets for 

small-diameter materials. The one ingredient broadly lacking in the National Fire 

Plan is local county/community involvement. This program gives locals the needed 

incentive to engage in the National Fire Plan. 

Forest Stewardship, Forest Legacy, Forest Land Enhancement Program.—Private 

forest lands in the United States are increasingly threatened by several factors, including development pressures, the increasing need for forest products and services, 

as well as forest health concerns. The Federal government has an obligation to ensure these forests are managed sustainably, as they provide numerous public goods 

and services. 

While we appreciate the proposal to allocate additional funding for the Forest 

Stewardship Program, as an alternative, we suggest that the proposed $16 million 

initiative to fund certain predefined stewardship projects on a competitive challenge 

cost share, should be eliminated and instead the funding should be allocated for a 

new program, the Watershed Forestry Assistance program. This program, originally 

proposed during debate on the 2002 Farm Bill, would address watershed and water 

quality issues on private lands in cooperation with State agencies. This program is 

similar to the Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements legislative proposal contained in the 2004 budget. 

Emerging Pests and Pathogens Fund.—Invasive species, insects, and disease pose 

increasing threats to our public and private forests. There is a need for a cooperative approach to addressing this issue across ownership boundaries, as these invaders do not respect property lines. In 1998, over 54 million acres of forest land were 

affected by various insect and diseases. Invasive species are increasingly a threat, 

contributing to the decline of 46 percent of imperiled or endangered species in the 

United States, second only to habitat degradation and loss. This program will help 
387

address these problems through rapid response to this overwhelming threat affecting the health and sustainability of forest resources across the country. 

Economic Action Programs.—We strongly oppose elimination of funding for Economic Action Programs. Local communities utilize these funds to build their capacity to and contribute to sustainable forest management. Through EAP, Communities 

are able to assist with fuels reduction and other forest health projects and utilize 

the byproducts of this work. 

National Forest System.—Because of rising stand densities and mortality rates, 

the NFS lands are increasingly at risk of fire, insect, and outbreaks, and invasive 

species. There is a need for active and continuous forest management as current 

management levels are not adequate to address forest health issues and provide the 

multiple uses for which these lands were established. There is a need for revision 

and clarification of the laws and regulations that govern national forest management in light of the changing public values, administrative agendas, court decisions, 

and federal environmental laws that have shifted the emphasis of land management. Without adjustments, we fear we will continue to see delays and increasing 

costs for the land management agencies. SAF will continue to work with Congress 

and the Administration to address these issues. 

One such example of the increasing cost and delay in land management is the 

timber sale component of the Forest Products Program. The budget documents indicate timber sales can take up to 8 years to complete. This is unacceptable. Timber 

harvesting is a legitimate use of national forests and BLM public lands, as the multiple-use mandates make clear. Current harvesting levels are insufficient to maintain forest health, to meet the goals for hazardous fuel reduction to reduce wildfire 

and the risk of insect and disease outbreaks in the nation’s forests and provide economic and community benefits. 

Adequate funding for land management planning is also necessary to ensure the 

Agency continues with the revision schedule for forest plans. With 39 plans in 

progress, and another 52 plans that will need revision in the coming years, the 

Agency cannot afford backlogs in planning. 

Expedited Consultation.—Without additional funds for the Forest Service and the 

Bureau of Land Management to support consultation required under the Endangered Species Act with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the land management agencies 

will be unable to do much needed work in a timely manner, such as fuels reduction 

and insect and disease mitigation activities. 

Wildland Fire Management—Congress, the Administration, the Western Governors, the State Foresters, the SAF and numerous others have expressed strong 

support for the National Fire Plan, and its four goals: improve fire prevention and 

suppression, reduce hazardous fuels, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, and promote 

community assistance. However, the proposed budget does not reflect this support, 

particularly with the elimination of funds for Rehabilitation and Restoration as well 

as the minimal increase in funding for preparedness and hazardous fuel activities. 

Funding for the National Fire Plan needs to be a sustained effort that will enable 

the nation as a whole to develop a long-term solution. 

Rehabilitation and Restoration.—In the proposed budget, this account was eliminated. The funds allocated to rehabilitation and restorations were placed in suppression accounts, which can be utilized for Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation activities. Other less immediate fire-related rehabilitation and restoration projects, 

normally funded by the Rehabilitation and Restoration account, will be prioritized 

within relevant programs along with other non-fire projects to ensure accomplishment of the highest priority projects given limited funding. While this rationale is 

consistent with the philosophy of local forest management, we do not believe this 

is consistent with the goals of the National Fire Plan. This funding allocation requires managers to make tradeoffs, when clearly; Congress, the Administration, and 

others who support the National Fire Plan believe fire-related rehabilitation and 

restoration activities should be a priority. If however, this is the direction that Congress chooses, the funds previously allocated for rehabilitation and restoration, 

should be re-allocated to the relevant program accounts (i.e. Vegetation Management, wildlife management, etc.) were the project funding would actually come from 

under this proposed strategy. The funds should not be allocated to suppression, 

which does not fund these non-emergency projects. 

Capital Improvement and Maintenance.—The proposal to fund the deferred maintenance projects through the facilities, roads, and trails line items, is somewhat unclear. The deferred maintenance backlog within the Forest Service is unacceptable, 

the Agency should work to address this problem, not ignore it. If funding for this 

deferred maintenance is to come from the other line items, there should be increases 

in those items to pay for those projects. We encourage the Agency to adopt a 

prioritization system for these projects and forward with implementation. 
388

National Forest Foundation.—The National Forest Foundation continues to provide outstanding leadership in natural resource management, providing valuable 

programs and services to the Agency and the public. We encourage you to increase 

funding for the NFF. 

Bureau of Land Management.—The BLM manages a total of 262 million acres of 

public lands, 55 million of which are forested lands. There is a significant disconnect 

between the number of acres of forest land the BLM manages and the number of 

forest management experts that are employed by the BLM. Congress should appropriate increases in funding to address this disconnect, especially in light of the additional authority granted under under the Stewardship Contracting provisions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TUMBLEDOWN CONSERVATION ALLIANCE

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony. I am writing on behalf of 

the Tumbledown Conservation Alliance (TCA). TCA is a nonprofit organization in 

Maine that is dedicated to land conservation efforts in the Mt. Blue/Tumbledown 

Mountain region of western Maine. I am writing specifically in regards to current 

land protection efforts that are underway for Tumbledown Mountain. 

TCA hopes that the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies (Committee 

on Appropriations) will support $3 million in fiscal year 2004 funding from the Forest Legacy program to go towards the protection of Tumbledown Mountain. A lot 

of progress has been made to date on this effort with the recent protection of 11,600 

acres of land on and adjacent to the Tumbledown Mountain range. 

The Tumbledown Mountain range is one of the most popular hiking areas in the 

State. The parcels under consideration are essential for protection of the range and 

all of its popular trails. The $3 million in fiscal year 2004 Forest Legacy funding 

would allow the State of Maine to complete the protection of Tumbledown and 

would be used to permanently protect important timberland, trailhead areas, wildlife habitat, and trails. The President’s fiscal year 2004 budget includes a request 

for Forest Legacy funding for Tumbledown Mountain and we hope that Congress 

and the Appropriations Committees will do the same. This effort to complete the 

protection of Tumbledown is part of a larger effort by the State of Maine, non-profit 

organizations, residents and visitors to conserve over 30,000 acres in the Mt. Blue/

Tumbledown Mountain region of Maine. 

The Tumbledown Conservation Alliance requests that you support $3 million for 

the fiscal year 2004 Forest Legacy Program for Tumbledown Mountain. Thank you 

for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) is submitting its comments on the U.S. 

Forest Service’s (FS) proposed budget for fiscal 2004. WMI is a scientific, educational non-profit organization that is staffed by professional wildlife biologists and 

is committed to the sustainable management of wildlife populations and habitats 

throughout North America. For 92-years we have worked closely with the FS to 

identify wildlife conservation needs and resource management solutions. Our following comments support a majority of the Administration’s budget requests but includes recommendations for a $25 million increase for the National Fire Plan’s restoration and rehabilitation account and a $19 million increase for the Forest Service’s research and development program. 

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM

Overall, WMI supports the Administration’s proposed budget for the National Forest System: $134.8 million for wildlife and fish habitat management and $192.6 million for vegetation and watershed management. This proposal represents essentially 

flat level spending for the FS, which is definitely appropriate at a time when our 

nation is in war. It is important to note, however, that at least $65 million is needed 

to address documented needs for wildlife and fish habitat improvements. The Forest 

Service has succeeded in using partnership dollars to chip away at deferred conservation projects, but wildlife and fish habitat management on national forests and 

grasslands should not depend only on the assistance of generous partners. In fiscal 

2002 alone, over $5.8 million in FS dollars leveraged almost $13.3 million (includes 

in-kind contributions) to complete approximately 719 forest and grassland projects. 

WMI encourages your subcommittee to expand the wildlife and fish habitat management account to the degree that current circumstances allow. 
389

Similarly, the vegetation and watershed management account needs an additional 

$49.4 million to restore and conserve a variety of ecosystems, including aspen, sagebrush, early successional forests, prairies/grasslands and old growth forests. 

Proactive habitat management benefits not only wild animals and the recreational 

users that depend on them, but can simultaneously meet the goals of the President’s 

Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) and National Fire Plan (NFP). Therefore, WMI requests that the biological and ecological needs of wildlife and fish serve as one of 

the primary factors that guide the implementation of the HFI and NFP. 

Lastly, the spread of non-native, invasive plants is a major problem among all 

rangelands, grasslands and forests. Invasive species thrive in disturbed environments, such as land areas that have been burned or used for road construction. 

Since fiscal 2001, substantially fewer National Forest System acres have been treated to control or eradicate invasive plants. Using vegetation and watershed management funds, nearly 144,000 acres were treated in fiscal 2001 but only 100,570 acres 

were planned for treatment in fiscal 2003 and 75,331 acres are planned for treatment in fiscal 2004. Because the annual economic cost of invasive plants for farmers, livestock ranchers and wildlife and fish agencies is estimated at $38 million, 

WMI urges your subcommittee to direct the FS to increase its focus on invasive species management and to treat at least 25,000 more acres in fiscal 2004. We believe 

the FS can realize this goal by integrating invasive species management into the 

objectives of the wildlife and fish habitat management program. Deferring this action results in significantly escalated costs in outlying years. 

STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

WMI applauds the Administration for significantly increasing the funding accounts for Forest Legacy ($91 million total request) and requesting $25 million for 

the Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP; previously known as the Stewardship Incentives Program and Forestry Incentives Program). Forest Legacy projects 

use conservation easements to protect non-industrial private forests that are at risk 

for conversion to other uses. Private forests provide valuable habitat to wildlife and 

approximately 300,000 acres are currently enrolled in the program. However, the FS 

has identified 1.7 million private forest land acres for protection. Thus, WMI asks 

your subcommittee to endorse the Administration’s $91 million request for Forest 

Legacy and to promote similar spending increases in the future as well. 

NATIONAL FIRE PLAN

WMI is deeply troubled by the Administration’s proposal to zero out the NFP’s 

restoration and rehabilitation account. In fiscal 2001, this account received $141.7 

million, which decreased to $62.7 million in fiscal 2002 to $0 in fiscal 2004. The restoration and management of burned lands is a multi-year project and should not be 

funded solely by the National Forest System’s accounts for wildlife and fish management and vegetation and watershed management, as proposed by the Administration. Since 2000, catastrophic wildfires have occurred on 19.2 million acres of forests 

and rangelands and the FS is preparing for another season of intense wildfires. 

WMI urges your subcommittee to appropriate at least $25 million for the restoration 

and rehabilitation account. Additionally, the FS must be directed to prepare realistic 

fire suppression budgets to ensure the agency does not have to borrow money form 

National Forest System accounts to combat future wildfires. Failure to adequately 

fund these programs will result in both near- and long-term excessive costs to taxpayers. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Administration proposes flat level spending for research and development activities concerning wildlife and fish habitat ($18.164 million and $8.572 million, respectively) and watersheds ($18.477 million). WMI encourages your subcommittee to 

at least support these funding requests. However, please note that the Forest Service’s wildlife and fish research units have identified a $19 million funding need for 

research questions concerning the HFI and invasive species. For example, it is unclear how certain mammals, such as bats and forest carnivores, for which research 

funding is lacking, will respond to the removal of small diameter timber (need is 

$1.5 million). Also, landscape level research is needed to fully assess the impacts 

of HFI activities (need is $1 million). As for invasive species research, it remains 

unclear how non-native plants and animals impact native fish and wildlife populations and how native wildlife and fish populations respond to invasions of non-native organisms (need is $2.5 million). WMI asks your subcommittee to address these 

additional research needs to the best of your ability. 
390

In closing, WMI remains concerned by the Forest Service’s transition to the Budget Formulation and Executing System. This budget structure relies upon broad performance measurements (e.g., acres of improved terrestrial habitat and number of 

products provided for information and education). This approach makes it impossible for FS partners to track services provided or benefits received among specific 

programs. The agency’s new accounting process further exacerbates this problem because it groups work activities for wildlife, fish and listed species under one budget 

line item. To ensure FS projects are transparent and accessible for public review, 

WMI urges your subcommittee to direct the FS to use more specific budget line 

items when explaining how requested and appropriated dollars will be spent. 

Thank you for reviewing our comments, and we hope to work with you throughout 

the appropriations process. If you or your staff would like to discuss our recommendations further, please contact me or Terry Riley, Director of Conservation, 

at (202) 371–1808. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony concerning 

the fiscal year 2004 budgets for the Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS), Farm Service Agency (FSA), Animal Plant Health Inspection Service 

(APHIS), and Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Services 

(CSREES). The Wildlife Society is the association of almost 9,000 professional wildlife biologists and managers dedicated to sound wildlife stewardship through science 

and education. The Wildlife Society is committed to strengthening all federal programs that benefit wildlife and their habitats on agricultural and other private land. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

Farm Bill Technical Assistance.—We applaud Congress for passing the 2002 Farm 

Bill, which authorizes the U.S. Department of Agriculture to work with third party 

Technical Service Providers to build a solid network of certified professionals that 

can assist NRCS in delivering assistance to producers. However, NRCS recognizes 

that training will be needed to effectively prepare Technical Service Providers to assist producers and landowners. The Wildlife Society recommends that Congress provide NRCS with adequate funds to recruit land grant universities and colleges, the 

USDA Extension System, and professional societies to help train sufficient Technical Service Providers. 

Monitoring and Evaluation.—Monitoring Farm Bill conservation programs and 

evaluating their progress toward achieving Congressionally established objectives 

for soil, water, and wildlife will enable NRCS to ensure successful program implementation. Changes to agricultural policy in the 2002 Farm Bill, such as higher 

funding authorizations and expanded acreage enrollment caps, necessitate the establishment of an accountability system that continuously assesses the effectiveness 

of conservation programs and policies. The Wildlife Society recommends dedicating 

mandatory funding to the monitoring and evaluation of Farm Bill conservation programs at the $10 million level approved in the Farm Bill Statement of Managers. 

We propose using a competitive grants process to fund a consortium of non-USDA 

organizations (non-governmental organizations, universities, and state organizations) for the purpose of identifying cost-saving practices, program improvements, 

and future funding requirements and determining the environmental and economic 

value of conservation expenditures. 

Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).—

We would like to express our gratitude for your continued support of WRP and for 

authorizing WHIP in 2003. WRP is a valuable program designed to assist farmers 

and ranchers protect and restore wetland habitat. WHIP is a voluntary program 

that provides technical and financial support to farmers and ranchers to create high 

quality wildlife habitat. The Wildlife Society supports funding WRP at $250 million 

in fiscal year 2004. We are concerned that the Administration’s request for WHIP, 

$42 million for 2004, is well below the 2002 Farm Bill’s authorized amount of $275 

million. The Wildlife Society recommends funding WHIP at $275 million in 2004. 

FARM SERVICE AGENCY

Staff Years.—FSA requires an adequate budget to implement the Farm Bill conservation programs under its administration. The Wildlife Society is concerned that 

the staffing level of 16,701 FTE proposed by the Administration in 2004 is too low 

to address the demonstrated need of agricultural producers. The Wildlife Society 
391

recommends that the budget include sufficient personnel funding to maintain the 

2003 requested level of 19,337 FTE. 

Grassland Reserve Program (GRP).—We believe the GRP will be valuable in aiding landowners in their grassland restoration efforts. The Wildlife Society supports 

the Administration’s 2004 request of $85 million for GRP. 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).—CRP is popular with landowners, and has 

resulted in significant wildlife and habitat benefits on agricultural land. Current demand for the program is on the rise, as is demand for technical assistance associated with implementation of CRP. The Wildlife Society recommends maintaining 

CRP enrollment at 39.2 million acres as finalized in the 2002 Farm Bill. 

Forest Land Enhancement Program (FLEP).—The Forest Land Enhancement Program was created through the 2002 Farm Bill to provide financial, technical, educational, and related assistance to promote sustainable management of non-industrial private forestlands. The program is authorized at $100 million for 2002–2007, 

to be distributed through state forestry agencies. The Wildlife Society asks that 

Congress appropriate at least $20 million to FLEP in 2004 to ensure that private 

forestlands continue to provide sustainable forest products and protect the health 

of our water, air, and wildlife. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

Wildlife Services.—Wildlife Services (WS), a unit of APHIS, is responsible for controlling wildlife damage to agriculture, aquaculture, forest, range and other natural 

resources, for controlling wildlife-borne diseases, and for controlling wildlife at airports. Its activities are based on the principles of wildlife management and integrated damage management, and are carried out cooperatively with State fish and 

wildlife agencies. 

The Wildlife Society is concerned about the proposed $1.5 million decrease in 

funding for Methods Development for 2004. Many current wildlife control tools such 

as traps, snares and wildlife toxicants are becoming less acceptable to the public 

and are being prohibited in many states as the result of public referenda. The only 

credible way to identify and perfect new methods is through research. However, WS 

funding is only adequate to cover maintenance and operating costs and no funding 

is being provided for the development of new innovative wildlife damage management methods. The Wildlife Society requests a $5 million increase for Methods Development to adequately continue non-lethal methods research and address the increased operating and maintenance costs. 

Veterinary Services.—Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is a serious problem plaguing our Nation’s deer and elk. The spread of CWD is draining already diminished 

federal and state agency budgets and is hurting local economies that depends on 

revenues from recreational hunting. The Wildlife Society supports the Administration’s request of $14.9 million for the research, monitoring, and control of CWD. 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND EXTENSION SERVICES

Renewable Resources Extension Act.—The Wildlife Society was pleased that Congress appropriated $423,000 above the Administration’s request for the Renewable 

Resources Extension Act (RREA) in 2003. RREA provides an expanded, comprehensive extension program for forest and rangeland renewable resources. The need for 

these programs is greater now than ever due to fragmentation of ownerships, urbanization, the number and diversity of landowners needing assistance, and the increasing social concern for land use and its effect on soil, water, air, and wildlife. 

It is important to note that RREA was reauthorized in the 2002 Farm Bill at $30 

million annually through 2007. Though RREA is proven to be effective at leveraging 

cooperative state and local funding, it has never been fully funded in the annual 

appropriations process. In fact, the fiscal year 2004 request for RREA falls back to 

the 2002 funding level, $4.093 million, which is insufficient for assisting private 

landowners who own and manage most of the nation’s natural resources. An increase to at least $15 million would enable CSREES to expand its capability to assist more private landowners in improving management of private land while increasing farm revenue. Therefore The Wildlife Society recommends that the Renewable Resources Extension Act be funded at a minimum of $15 million in fiscal year 

2004. 

McIntire-Stennis.—The McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry program funds 

state efforts in forestry research to increase the efficiency of forestry practices, and 

to extend the benefits that come from forest and related rangelands. McIntire-Stennis calls for close coordination between state colleges and universities and the Federal Government, and is essential for providing research background for other Acts, 

such as RREA. The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 request for McIntire-Stennis 
392

is $21.884 million, in essence level with 2002 and 2003. The Wildlife Society recommends that funding for McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry be increased to 

$30 million. 

National Research Initiative.—National Research Initiative Competitive Grants 

(NRI) are open to academic institutions, federal agencies, and private organizations 

to fund research on improving agricultural practices, particularly production systems that are sustainable both environmentally and economically, and to develop 

methods for protecting natural resources and wildlife. Innovative grant programs 

such as NRI help broaden approaches to land management, such as integrating timber and wildlife management on private lands. The Wildlife Society supports the 

Administration’s 2004 request of $200 million for National Research Initiative Competitive Grants, and requests Congressional approval. 

Thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals. We look forward to 

working with you and your staff to ensure adequate funding for wildlife conservation. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY

My name is David Nemtzow, President of the Alliance to Save Energy, a bi-partisan, non-profit coalition of business, government, environmental, and consumer 

leaders committed to promoting energy efficiency worldwide to achieve a healthier 

economy, a cleaner environment and energy security. I am writing to request, generally, that funding for the energy efficiency programs of the U.S. Department of 

Energy be increased, and that the Buildings Technologies, and Industrial Technologies programs be restored to their fiscal year 2002 levels—$9.8 million, and 

$41.3 million respectively. Specifically, our top priority recommendations, totaling 

$8.0 million, are set forth below. 

The Alliance was founded in 1977 by Senators Charles Percy (R-IL) and Hubert 

Humphrey (D-MN). The current Chair is Senator Byron Dorgan, and Vice-Chairs 

are Senators: Susan Collins; Jeff Bingaman; James Jeffords and Representative Ed 

Markey. Seventy-six companies and organizations currently belong to the Alliance. 

The Alliance has a long history of researching and evaluating federal energy efficiency programs. We also have a long history of supporting efforts to promote energy 

efficiency that rely not on mandatory federal regulations, but on partnerships between government and business and between the federal and State governments. 

DOE efficiency programs are largely voluntary programs that further the national 

goals of broad-based economic growth, environmental protection, national security 

and economic competitiveness. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy does this through the development of new energy-efficient technology in cooperation with the national laboratories, by working with the private sector to deploy that technology, and by fostering energy efficiency activities in the states. 

I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2004 budget for energy-efficiency programs at the Department of Energy. 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST

We have two general concerns regarding the fiscal year 2004 request. 

First, it proposes reductions of roughly 4 and 2 percent from fiscal year 2002 and 

fiscal year 2003 appropriations, respectively. Given the current volatility in energy 

prices, the continuing economic slowdown, and the insecurity of the nation’s energy 

systems and supplies, we believe that now is not the time to be cutting back on investments in energy efficiency—the nation’s cheapest, quickest, and cleanest energy 

resource. 

Second, the fiscal year 2004 request proposes cutting existing and successful programs in order to pay for increases for Weatherization Assistance and the fuel cell 

programs. The Alliance strongly supports both of these recommendations. We have 

serious concerns, however, that while the Administration is proposing $674 billion 

in tax cuts as a part of an economic stimulus plan there are decreases in other programs that have demonstrated their ability to create jobs and stimulate the economy. 

In 2001, the National Research Council found that for 17 DOE energy efficiency 

programs they analyzed, there was a return of $20 to the economy for every dollar 

invested. These rates-of-return compare favorably with most investment opportunities including the stimulus effect anticipated from tax reductions. In a time of recession and high, volatile energy prices, we should be substantially increasing our in-
393

vestment in these successful programs instead of using them to fund other initiatives. 

By our calculation, the fiscal year 2004 budget request would reduce funding for 

non-fuel cell, nonweatherization programs by more than 20 percent as compared to 

fiscal year 2002. That includes programs with proven cost-effectiveness such as: 

Lighting and Appliance Standards, Energy Star, the Federal Energy Management 

Program, Windows R&D, support for state adoption of building energy codes and 

other programs that have reduced national energy demand, cut energy costs for consumers, and created jobs through the commercialization of new technologies and 

products. We urge that funding for the Buildings and Industrial Technologies accounts be restored to their fiscal year 2002 levels. 

For example, the appliance standards program has been acknowledged by DOE 

to have reduced national peak electric demand by 2.5 percent. That is a huge accomplishment, achieved at a federal cost of less than $10 million per year. Equally large 

savings remain available assuming continued funding support. In fact, even the existing limitations on appropriations have caused DOE to fall years—sometimes up 

to ten years—behind on setting standards for products that could be providing savings for consumers and the economy. Moreover, Congress is poised to enact legislation that would substantially increase the number of rulemakings that DOE would 

be required to undertake. What is the logic of cutting this program? 

Another program that was praised by the National Research Council is the Industries of the Future Program (IOF). IOF has historically worked in consultation with 

energy intensive industries to assess research needs and focus on the greatest value 

added for government R&D efforts. DOE seems to have largely abandoned this approach in the 2004 budget, cutting chemical, forest and paper products industries, 

and other program areas by more than 50 percent. In addition, the Administration 

has zeroed out efforts to continue similar successes in the buildings sector, eliminating its roadmap programs for lighting and windows. The justification for eliminating these programs appears to be that, if they are worth doing, then industry 

will fund it. Several analyses of government R&D efforts have shown that this does 

not hold true (Galvin, Yergin). 

NEW MONEY IS NECESSARY

We have now had two gasoline and two natural gas price spikes in three years. 

Our energy prices and supplies continue their instability, costing consumers dearly 

to fill their gas tanks and heat their homes, and sending shocks through the economy. Robbing Peter to pay Paul is the wrong approach to national energy policy. 

The President’s fiscal year 2004 cuts in energy efficiency are the wrong approach. 

We agree that new energy efficiency research objectives need to be met, but funding 

should be increased to do so instead of cutting back on other equally important objectives. 

HYDROGEN

Hydrogen has potential to replace oil as the fuel to power our transportation system, but there are major technological problems to be solved. We cannot predict 

whether those hurdles will be overcome by the time those born this year will become 

drivers, as anticipated by the President in his State of the Union speech, or whether 

it will take much longer. Research and development, by its very nature, is uncertain. It is often compared to a financial investment portfolio. Diversity, and balancing risk are key considerations in developing an effective investment, or R&D, 

strategy. No one knows for certain whether large-scale use of hydrogen for transportation will ever become practical, let alone in the next 16 years. 

Just one of the critical questions which has not yet been answered is; how to 

make the hydrogen? Currently, the best way to make hydrogen is from natural gas. 

But natural gas is currently used to heat 55 percent of American homes and is expected to fuel nearly all new domestic electric generation capacity added during the 

next decade. Surely, the addition of powering our extensive transportation system 

from natural gas will invalidate current assumptions about the future price and 

supply of natural gas—a commodity already undergoing tremendous price volatility. 

Accordingly, we should not curtail work on increasing the efficiency with which 

our building and industrial sectors use natural gas, or DOE’s work on improving 

hybrid technology and other transportation fuel efficiency technologies simply because hydrogen has the potential to be a long-term solution to transportation efficiency. Such a strategy does not properly balance the risks of failure with the likelihood of success. 
394

ANOMALIES IN THE BUDGET REQUEST

The Alliance is confounded by certain reductions in the President’s budget request 

between fiscal years 2003 and 2004. 

For fiscal year 2003, DOE requested $6.2 million for the Energy Star program. 

That figure was supported in both the House and Senate Interior Appropriations 

bills passed last year—though reduced to $4.2 million by the Conference Committee 

under the stringent caps of the Omnibus legislation. The fiscal year 2004 request 

is for $3.7 million, a 14 percent cut from fiscal year 2003 actual appropriations and 

a 40 percent cut from the fiscal year 2003 request. Why does Energy Star, a program which produces $75 in savings for every dollar spent, and which received glowing support in the National Energy Plan, merit such less consideration this year 

than last? 

Another drastic change occurred in the request for the Federal Energy Management Program. For fiscal year 2003, the President requested $27.9 million for this 

very successful effort to save energy in the federal government, the world’s single 

largest energy user. FEMP has played a central role in the federal government’s 

success in reducing energy use by 21 percent from 1985 to 2000. Nevertheless, the 

fiscal year 2004 request is $19.9 million. Again, there is no indication of why FEMP 

has been targeted for such significant reduction. 

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FUNDS

Since the reorganization of EERE last year, the budget request includes the new 

Program Management account, to be funded at $76.66 million in fiscal year 2004. 

Previously, each of the energy-use sector programs had its own program management account to cover salaries and administrative costs. Now, these funds are consolidated in the Office of the Assistant Secretary to be disbursed at their discretion. 

While, the Alliance has no objection to discretion, such discretion need not preclude 

transparency. We believe that there should be greater disclosure regarding the intended allocation of these funds so that Congress and the public will have a clear 

view and understanding of the total budget that is recommended for each major program area. In fact, we remain confused about the fiscal year 2004 funding levels 

for some programs because it is uncertain how much of these ‘‘program management’’ funds they will be receiving. 

EERE REORGANIZATION

Last year, our testimony presented several questions about the reorganization at 

EERE. After a year of experience, it is time to ask them again. 

—Does the reorganization itself create shifts in program priority for EERE, and 

what are they? 

—For which programs does the reorganization make it harder, or easier, to do 

business? 

—How does the mandated routing of all communication activities through the Assistant Secretary’s office enhance or detract from the office’s ability to get its 

message out? 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Generally, the Alliance to Save Energy recommends that the activities under the 

Building Technologies and Industrial Technologies sectors be restored to fiscal year 

2002 levels. Specifically, the Alliance recommends the following fiscal year 2004 

funding levels: 

—Lighting and Appliance Standards (under Equipment, Materials and Tools)—

plus $2.0 million over the request, to $11.0 million; 

—Federal Energy Management Program—plus $2.0 million, to $22.0 million; 

—Energy Star—plus $2.0 million, to $5.7 million; 

—Industrial Best Practices (under Industries of the Future, crosscutting)—at the 

requested level of $8.24 million; 

—Window Technologies (under Building Envelop R&D)—plus $1.0 million to $4.5 

million; and 

—State Building Codes (under State Energy Program, Building Tech. Assist.)—

plus $1.0 million, to $2.8 million. 

Other programs deserving of increased funding are: Thermal Insulation and 

Building Materials; Clean Cities; Industrial Assessment Centers; Industries of the 

Future—Specific; Building America; and Sensors and Control Technologies. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for offering the Alliance to Save Energy the opportunity to submit its views, and for your support in past years for energy effi-
395

ciency. We hope that you share our commitment to energy efficiency and to the economic, environmental, and security benefits it offers the nation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALLISON TRANSMISSION DIVISION OF GENERAL

MOTORS, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 

REQUEST

Our companies are competitively developing Heavy Duty hybrid electric propulsion systems (HD Hybrid) for Trucks and Buses. At the same time, we have precompetitively established common objectives that we agree to jointly pursue in order 

to enable these products to come to market. All of our companies have encountered 

barriers to commercialization so significant that we have collectively agreed Federal 

assistance is essential to overcome them. We jointly request that the committee increase the Department of Energy’s 2004 budget for the Hybrid and Electric Propulsion Program as shown in the table at the end of this testimony. The Department 

of Energy should be instructed to ‘‘use these additional funds for the acceleration 

of Heavy Duty Hybrid Development, without stipulation of vehicle fuel type, architecture or configuration, to enable the development of solutions that best meet the 

needs of the trucking industry’’. 

BACKGROUND

Our goals are to develop HD Hybrid propulsion products, overcome the technical 

barriers that inhibit the technology and stimulate market demand for these products. In essence, we are attempting to create a new, globally competitive industrial 

base in the United States that will significantly benefit the Transportation sector. 

Our approach is to create an environment that is conducive to the accomplishment 

of our goals. Our plan is to educate interested parties as to why HD Trucks and 

HD Hybrids are important, explain why HD Trucks and HD Hybrids differ from 

those used in Cars, Light Duty Trucks, SUV’s and Combat Vehicles, to outline why 

Government assistance is needed and to summarize our technology priorities. 

THE DILEMMA OF HEAVY DUTY (HD) TRUCKS

The average American does not understand or care why HD Trucks are important. Quite the contrary, the prevailing attitude toward HD Trucks ranges from indifference to outright hostility. They are dirty, noisy and smelly and many of them 

aren’t pretty. Americans have to share the roads with them. Such trucks intimidate 

automobile drivers and are perceived to cause accidents, clog traffic and ruin the 

roads. It’s no wonder that looking for public policy support for HD Trucks is difficult. Trucks are unpopular, but, the average American doesn’t realize that America 

can’t economically survive without them and Americans cannot live without them. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF HD TRUCKS

America’s economy runs on trucks. Virtually everything we own was transported 

by a HD Truck at least once, if not multiple times, to bring it to our homes or the 

place where we purchased it. If you have it, it came by truck and when you’re 

through with it, a truck will take it away. According to both the 1993 and 1997 U.S. 

DOT Commodity Flow Survey Studies, 72 percent of the dollar value of goods 

shipped in the United States was shipped by truck. Furthermore, trends such as 

Just-In-Time (JIT) delivery and E-commerce are pushing our dependency on shipping higher. A report titled ‘‘Economic Effects of Transportation, the Freight Story’’, 

January 2002 by ICF Consulting and HLB Decision Economics outlines the causes 

and effects of this paradigm shift. The Motor Carrier Act of 1980 deregulated trucking, which led to increased competition in interstate transportation markets. This 

caused trucking companies to cut their profit margins and increase efficiency to survive, which led to lower shipping costs. Business managers soon recognized this 

trend and invented JIT delivery, exploiting the trend by trading inventory cost for 

shipping cost to save money. Inventory costs of business were reduced from 8.2 percent of GDP in 1981 to 3.6 percent of GDP in 1999 and at the same time, shipping 

costs were reduced from 7.4 percent of GDP in 1980 to 6 percent of GDP in 1988 

and after. This resulted in more money available to suppliers of goods and less to 

the trucking industry despite increasing ton-mile volumes, which helped fuel the 

pre-Y2K economic expansion we enjoyed. The other significant effect is that the Nation’s economy is now considerably more dependent on reliable, low-cost freight due 

to reduced inventories. In summary, trucking is extremely important to our Nation’s 

economy, even though most Americans take it for granted. 
396

THE IMPORTANCE OF HD HYBRID TRUCKS

HD Hybrid makes trucks cleaner and more efficient. In an era of increasing tonmile shipping volumes, fueled by the economic phenomenon described above, this is 

a very important consideration. HD Hybrid can reduce Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) up 

to 50 percent and improve fuel economy up to 50 percent, depending on the driving 

cycle. Other technologies that are being developed and introduced to meet EPA 2004 

emissions regulations (in 2002 for those companies that are party to the consent decree) such as Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) improve emissions but degrade fuel 

economy. HD Engine company representatives have stated that 2004 compliant engines reduce fuel economy as much as 10 percent. Considering the trucking industry’s razor thin margins, the cost increase driven by 10 percent poorer fuel economy 

could be devastating to both the trucking industry and the Nation’s economy. With 

HD Hybrid, you don’t have to sacrifice efficient for clean. 

Interestingly enough, HD Hybrid is a multiplier of other advanced truck and bus 

technologies. It complements, enhances and integrates with improvements in engines, aerodynamics, safety, aftertreatment devices, anti-idling systems, traction 

control and intelligent transportation concepts. It does this because of its advanced 

computer control system and its inherent power management capability. HD Hybrid 

can have the effect on HD Trucks that stringent fuel economy and emissions regulations coupled with savvy foreign competition and increasing customer expectations 

has had on passenger cars. These market forces caused the automakers to more 

fully integrate their vehicles and meet emissions regulations, improve fuel economy 

and offer higher quality, more competitive products. HD Hybrid is a unifying technology that enables Engine, Truck and HD Component Manufacturers to work together in an Integrated Product Team (IPT) fashion to enhance the competitiveness 

of their products. 

Looking forward, HD Hybrid is an integral part of the technology roadmap for 

fuel cell powered and all-electric HD Trucks and Buses. A fuel cell has no spinning 

shaft for power take-off and connection to a mechanical transmission and driveshaft. 

You put hydrogen in, and electricity and water vapor come out. But electricity alone 

cannot move a truck. HD Hybrid brings with it the electric drive technology that 

a fuel cell needs to become a propulsion system. And, the Japanese trucking industry is already moving forward with HD Hybrid, spearheaded by a Government wide 

METI initiative 

HOW HD TRUCKS DIFFER FROM LD VEHICLES

This subject is worth discussing to address the common perception that investments in Passenger Car technology benefit HD Trucks. First, it is important to understand the definitions of Light Duty (LD) vs. Heavy Duty (HD) vehicles. LD vehicles (and Trucks) are those that fall into Classes 1 and 2a, which contain vehicles 

such as Passenger Cars (Pass Cars), Light Trucks (such as the GMC/Chevy 1500 

series pick-up truck), Minivans and most Sport-Utility Vehicles (SUV’s). HD Trucks 

are everything else, that is, all vehicles that exceed 8,500 lbs Gross Vehicle Weight 

(GVW), which are Classes 2b through 8. This cross section of vehicles includes Tractor-Trailers, Delivery Vans, Refuse and Dump Trucks, UPS and FedEx Package 

Vans, Buses, even large pick-up trucks such as the GMC/Chevy 2500 and 3500 series are in the HD class. A summary of characteristics that differ between LD and 

HD vehicles relative to North American markets is shown below.

Characteristic Heavy duty (HD) trucks LD trucks and pass. cars 

Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) ................... 8,500 to 80,000 lbs .............................. Up to 8,500 lbs. 

Duty cycle ............................................... Continuous daily operation .................... Intermittent light duty 

Peak horsepower ..................................... 150 to 600 ............................................. 70 to 300 

Continuous horsepower .......................... 150 to 600 ............................................. 25 to 60 

Annual mileage ...................................... 20,000 to 250,000 miles ....................... 8,000 to 20,000 miles 

Expected lifetime .................................... Up to 1,000,000 miles .......................... 150,000 miles 

Purchase price (not incl. bus) ............... $40,000 to $150,000 ............................. $12,000 to $40,000 

Market volume (annual) ......................... 800,000 .................................................. 18,000,000 

Number of configuration variants .......... Millions .................................................. A few thousand 

Fuel of choice ......................................... Diesel ..................................................... Gasoline 

Fuel consumption ................................... 5 to 15 MPG .......................................... 14 to 40 MPG 

Who buys it ............................................ The fleet manager ................................. The driver 

Who drives it .......................................... A hired driver ......................................... The owner 

Buyers priority ........................................ Reliability, Low ownership cost ............. I like it/Want it 

Emissions certification ........................... Engine only ............................................ Vehicle level 

Certification responsibility ..................... Engine manufacturer ............................. Vehicle manufacturer 
397

These factors have caused HD Truck and LD Vehicle markets and industries to 

behave very differently. Their markets, products, business models, revenue streams 

and regulatory environments are completely different. Technologies resulting from 

Basic Research can be transferable between the industries but the products of Applied Research and beyond are market specific. In summary, the HD Truck and LD 

Vehicle technologies and corresponding investments in them are complimentary, but 

they leverage each other only at the most basic level. 

How HD Trucks differ from Military (Combat) Vehicles.—Likewise, HD Trucks are 

significantly different than Combat vehicles. Arguments have been made that investments the DOD is making in hybrid electric for programs such as Future Combat System (FCS) should yield technology that is transferable to HD Trucks. As 

with hybrid technology developed for cars, military hybrid technology is complimentary, but only transferable at the basic level. Applied technologies are still unique 

for HD Trucks. A summary of characteristics that differ between Combat Vehicles 

and HD Trucks aids in understanding this concept and is shown below.

Characteristic Heavy duty (HD) trucks FCS combat vehicles 

Duty cycle ............................................... Continuous daily operation .................... Intermittent duty 

Annual mileage ...................................... 20,000 to 250,000 miles ....................... 600 to 2,000 miles 

Expected lifetime .................................... Up to 1,000,000 miles .......................... 40,000 miles 

Purchase price (not incl. bus) ............... $40,000 to $150,000 ............................. $500,000 to $6,000,000 

Market volume (annual) ......................... 800,000 .................................................. 1,000 

Number of configuration variants .......... Millions .................................................. Less than 100 

Who buys it ............................................ The fleet manager ................................. The Army 

Who drives it .......................................... A hired driver ......................................... A Soldier 

Buyers priority ........................................ Reliability, Low ownership cost ............. Performance 

Emissions certification ........................... Engine only ............................................ Not Required 

Why Government Assistance is Needed.—The preceding paragraphs have established the importance of trucking to the Nation’s economy and highlighted that HD 

Hybrid is a technology that offers increased efficiency with a simultaneous emissions reduction. HD Hybrid can enhance Energy and Economic Security as well as 

favorably impact the attainment of Air Quality Standards. It was also noted that 

technology investments in Light Duty vehicle technology have marginal impact on 

Heavy Duty Trucks, production volumes are much smaller than that of cars, and 

that the trucking industry operates on very slim profit margins due to the competition created by deregulation. As a result, HD Hybrid is a technology that offers significant benefit to the public good, but due to the economic factors discussed above 

the trucking industry cannot afford it. This is where the Government can help. 

Through prudent investment in key technologies, and by assuring that sufficient 

testing experience is available to overcome consumer reluctance, the Government 

can help Industry get this technology ‘‘over the hump’’, to the point that it will stand 

on its own with a strong business case driven by proven Life Cycle Cost payback 

and superior residual value to trucking firms. 

Therefore, we respectfully ask the Subcommittee to Increase the Department of 

Energy’s 2004 budget for the Hybrid and Electric Propulsion Program as shown in 

the table below. The Department of Energy should be instructed to ‘‘use these additional funds for the acceleration of Heavy Duty Hybrid Development, without stipulation of vehicle fuel type, architecture or configuration, to enable the development 

of solutions that best meet the needs of the trucking industry’’.

[In thousands of dollars] 

Hybrid and electric propulsion line item 

Fiscal year 2004 

President’s

request 

Fiscal year 21CT 

partnership

request 

21CT plus-up 

Energy Storage ........................................................................................... 28,700 32,700 4,000

Advanced Power Electronics ...................................................................... 13,690 17,690 4,000

Subsystem Integration and Development .................................................. 7,173 11,173 4,000

Our technology priorities are Power Management Technology, Building the Component Supplier Base, Engine & Aftertreatment Integration, Electric Machines and 

Drive Units, Component & System Reliability Growth and Component & System 

Modeling & Simulation. The first two priorities map in to the Energy Storage and 

Advanced Power Electronics line items. The remaining four priorities map into the 

Subsystem Integration and Development line item. 
398

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the American Gas 

Association (AGA), comprising 191 natural gas distribution companies across North 

America, serving 60 million homes and businesses in all 50 states, we offer this testimony related to the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) fiscal year 2004 Budget. 

AGA is pleased with the productive partnership it has with DOE and this Subcommittee to advance cost-shared research projects that serve the national interest. 

Within the Interior Subcommittee’s jurisdiction, DOE’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for natural gas RD&D programs reside in the Offices of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE) and Fossil Energy (FE). For the past decade we have 

provided this Subcommittee with a litany of technology priorities across a broad 

spectrum of programs. While AGA continues to support programs such as natural 

gas vehicles and industrial RD&D, two top priorities and programs have emerged: 

FE’s natural gas infrastructure and EERE’s distributed energy resource (DER) programs. The Administration requested no funding for natural gas infrastructure research in the fiscal year 2004 budget, compared with $9.1 million appropriated by 

Congress for the current year. AGA respectfully requests an increase of $25 million 

to the budget request for Infrastructure programs. Justification for this $15.9 million increase over the current level is discussed below. EERE’s fiscal year 2004 DER 

request is virtually unchanged from fiscal year 2003 at the level of $58.8 million 

and AGA respectfully requests an increase of $10 million for a total of $68.8 million. 

The purpose of the amendment request is discussed below. 

AGA’s prioritization and funding request reflects the nation’s immediate need for, 

and the Industry’s commitment to, dramatic advancement in the areas of infrastructure and DER. The horrible terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, make clear the 

needed re-investment in infrastructure both to facilitate greater reliance on domestic energy resources and to ensure the secure distribution of those national assets 

to American consumers. Increased emphasis on Homeland Security also highlights 

the value of a power generation portfolio that is distributed, reliable, cost-effective 

and able to operate independently even if a central power station or the electric grid 

is compromised. Given these needs and our commitment to reliable and safe service 

for the American people, the Natural Gas Industry has developed two initiatives 

aimed at dramatically advancing Infrastructure and DER, they include the Natural 

Gas Partnership and the National Accounts Energy Alliance. 

The Office of Management and Budget proposes to terminate funding for the natural gas infrastructure program in DOE. The American Gas Association strongly 

supports the DOE’s program for natural gas industry Infrastructure and Operations. 

This program was initiated in fiscal year 2001 with an appropriation of $4.9 million 

for infrastructure and has been met by tremendous enthusiasm and project cost 

sharing within the natural gas industry. More than 70 proposals, totaling in excess 

of $45 million, were submitted by industry partners in response to the inaugural 

year funding under the DOE program. These proposals exceeded the available dollars by a nine-to-one margin. All proposals met or exceeded DOE’s 35 percent costsharing requirement. 

Congress appropriated $9.1 million for fiscal year 2003 and all indications are 

that industry partners will respond at least as enthusiastically as last year. Given 

the need to revitalize the Nation’s aging natural gas infrastructure with new technologies and materials, given the heightened importance of safeguarding that infrastructure, and given the overwhelming response of the natural gas industry to 

partnering with the government to achieve these objectives, AGA highly recommends the continuation and expansion of this program by $15.9 million in fiscal 

year 2004. 

In general, DOE’s infrastructure R&D is geared to its mission to make the nation’s energy infrastructure more reliable, efficient and able to meet the needs of 

the economy. It tends to have longer-term benefits. DOE’s programs include projects 

such as: more corrosion-resistant material that can transport gas at higher pressure, 

more fuel efficient compressors that are capable of flexible compression operation, 

improved automated data acquisition, system monitoring and control techniques, no 

dig technologies, innovative excavation and restoration systems, and plastic pipe 

technology. All of these contribute to public benefits in terms of additional domestic 

energy supply, increased safety and reliability, lower cost to consumers, and improved environmental performance. 

The natural gas industry provides substantial cost sharing in the development of 

the technologies necessary to develop this new infrastructure. We do believe that 

there are significant benefits that will accrue to all Americans as a result of an infrastructure research partnership. We know that major and novel system improvements are needed for natural gas to be delivered in the volumes that DOE believes 
399

will be required in the future and that these improvements are dependent on new, 

highly efficient technologies. 

Some in the Office of Management and Budget argue that all natural gas infrastructure research should be conducted exclusively by the Department of Transportation. Currently, the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) in DOT does conduct limited 

infrastructure-related work. Consistent with its role as a pipeline safety regulatory 

agency, OPS’s pipeline R&D has focused on near-term safety, security and damage 

prevention projects and technologies, and codes and standards development. DOE 

focuses on the long term energy delivery issues related to natural gas infrastructure. Although, both departments are involved in R&D, the departments have different missions and their R&D programs reflect it. 

Coordination between the two departments is critical and AGA recommends a balance of both security, safety, reliability and efficiency related work. The research 

programs in each department are extremely essential. 

Meeting a large increase in demand efficiently and in a manner that is in the best 

interest of the American people will require continued cooperation among DOE, 

DOT, and the natural gas industry to develop the necessary research tools. It is 

clear that immediate and substantial investment in research supporting natural gas 

infrastructure is essential to ensuring energy reliability and security in our Nation. 

The natural gas industry’s commitment to partnering with the Departments of 

Energy and Transportation is underscored by AGA’s creation and advocacy of legislation that sets aside industry funds to compliment federal research expenditures 

on natural gas infrastructure. 

DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES—NATIONAL ACCOUNTS ENERGY ALLIANCE (NAEA)

Efforts to test and deploy technologies being developed under the DER program 

in EERE are significantly under-funded. Private sector interest in these technologies 

is compelling. The Office of Power Technologies receives nearly ten solicitation applications (each application is typically developed by an entire team of companies) 

for every award it makes. While more manufacturers are entering the market, and 

dramatically more attention from states, power providers and end-users is focused 

on DER, significant RD&D requirements abound. DER provides the opportunity for 

efficient use of waste heat to achieve total system efficiency levels as high as 80 percent. This compares to large central power plant efficiencies that are typically less 

than half as efficient largely due to their inability to productively use all of their 

waste heat. Further, the higher efficiency of DER systems inherently leads to lower 

emissions since these systems use less fuel, and typically cleaner feedstock fuels, 

than central power plants to achieve a given unit of power output. Many utilities 

are now exploring the utilization of DER to reduce the strain on congested transmission systems. On-site DER systems are especially important for high-tech and 

mission-critical facilities as they offer dramatic increases in power quality and reliability. The national economy is inextricably linked to information and electronically 

sensitive computer systems that require uninterruptible power that the 50∂ year 

old electric grid was not designed to serve. Mission-critical systems, be it in hightech, healthcare, manufacturing, or government facilities, are enhanced by DER. 

DOE has spent tens of millions of dollars developing individual DER technologies 

over the past decade. However, tremendous work remains in the areas of system 

development, advanced controls and sensors, power quality and reliability, storage, 

and interconnection. DOE has studied the technical, regulatory, market and institutional barriers to widespread utilization of DER and has worked to promote commercial acceptance. However, to date, these programs have failed to capture the vision of large commercial end-users at the corporate or headquarters level—NAEA 

is focused on affecting targeted change at this point. 

Few of the potential benefits from the Department’s research investments will be 

realized if these technologies are not adequately tested and if initial deployment is 

not targeted to commercial applications with large potential for replication. The National Accounts Energy Alliance (NAEA) started in fiscal year 2002 and was envisioned as a four-year cost-shared initiative aimed at developing highly-efficient, 

technology driven, new construction and retrofit models for the nation’s largest endusers, in partnership with their energy providers. The American Gas Association, 

Gas Technology Institute and American Gas Foundation have come together to establish NAEA. NAEA’s members comprise the nation’s largest energy providers 

(electric and natural gas) as well as almost two dozen end-users such as McDonalds, 

Wal-Mart Stores, TJ Maxx, the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Com (A&P). 

The nation’s electric grid faces many technology challenges ranging from generation shortfalls to transmission and distribution constraints. The utilization of distributed energy resources (DER) is widely considered to be the cheapest, cleanest 
400

and most obtainable near-term solution to many of these challenges. DER systems 

can be sited where the power is needed and can be utilized with energy efficiency 

ratings exceeding 80 percent (compared to 29 percent efficiency for the electric grid) 

where waste heat is recaptured and reused. DOE has spent hundreds of millions 

of dollars over the years developing DER technologies but many technical, regulatory and institutional barriers remain. This is especially true for incorporation 

into new construction or retrofits of large commercial end-users. NAEA was created 

to address these barriers squarely by working with large commercial entities, at the 

headquarters-level, to develop new and standardized construction models incorporating advanced DER systems. Typically, all of these construction efforts are 

based on a central construction model, with a handful of geographic-based options. 

Additionally, a missing ingredient to DOE’s past deployment programs was an energy Technology Test and Verification Program (TT&VP). DER testing and technology adoption by national accounts is the fastest way to perform testing, disseminate the results widely, make necessary technology and applications corrections and 

subsequently rapidly deploy improved systems. Because of fierce competition, standardization, central design services and extensive building programs, it is extremely 

difficult for national accounts to perform such tests on newly emerging technologies 

like DER because of their impact upon facility design. 

At its inception NAEA focused on retail, supermarket and food service industries. 

In fiscal year 2003 and beyond, NAEA will expand its membership to include a 

broader segment of the healthcare, high-tech and telecommunications, hotel, and 

targeted manufacturing industries. This program illustrates the commitment of the 

natural gas industry and its partners to deploy the research being conducted under 

the DER technology areas. 

We respectfully request that the Subcommittee add $10 million to the DER budget for consortiums such as the National Accounts Energy Alliance to conduct technology verification tests and build partnerships of key stakeholders for the rapid deployment of distributed energy technologies. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, AGA is giving great emphasis to developing comprehensive programs across end-use sectors that complement each other and provide cheaper energy to the end-user, while reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency, 

quality, and reliability. And, the infrastructure research partnership between DOE 

and the natural gas industry will also have significant benefits in terms of safety, 

reliability, cleaner air and economic growth that will accrue to all Americans. AGA 

greatly appreciates your past support and consideration of these proposals. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF REQUEST

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony this year. Our testimony concerns fiscal year 2004 funding for the Office of Industrial Technologies 

(OIT)-Steel within the Department of Energy. This line item includes the highly successful, highly leveraged Technology Roadmap Program (TRP), which has nearly 60 

industrial participants. 

It is because of this extensive leveraging (steel companies have cooperated for decades and are highly skilled at collaborative research and tech transfer to the plant 

floor), that seemingly small amounts of funding yield very significant results. Our 

research programs with DOE are fundamental to overcoming technical barriers to 

the future success of the steel industry. We believe that a strong, competitive and 

innovative steel industry is a critical component of national security and is also 

strategic for our country’s energy security (e.g., transmission towers and pipelines). 

We ask you to keep these points in mind as you consider our request. And we ask 

you also to look at the results our programs have achieved thus far. 

The present budget mark of $3.4 million for all steel programs will satisfy Technology Roadmap funding requirements for current tasks ($2.2 million in 2004), but 

such a drastic cut (the fiscal year 2003 budget is $10 million) will prohibit completion of other valuable steel projects and render useless the investments already 

made in them. Second, new opportunities for potential breakthrough technologies 

will not be pursued. Third, the steel industry recently committed to a 10 percent 

reduction in energy utilization per ton by 2012 as part of the President’s Business 

Challenge/Climate Vision Program. If passed, the proposed 66 percent cut in steel 

R & D funding will certainly reduce our ability to develop and deploy technology 

needed to achieve that goal. We urge the subcommittee to fund OIT-Steel at a level 
401

of $10 million in order that programs under contract are completed (so their benefits 

are realized) and new opportunities can be pursued. We would also direct the subcommittee’s attention to the specific funding of TRP at $2.2 million (of the $10 million requested) in fiscal year 2004. We believe the track record of steel industry research undertaken by AISI and DOE is excellent, as evidenced by the results, some 

of which are described below. Another metric of the value of this work is that widespread industrial participation and funding remained, even through periods of severe steel company financial distress. There is every reason to believe that continued funding will lead to additional important advances, such as those described 

below. 

TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The Technology Roadmap Program began under the Steel and Aluminum Energy 

Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act, also known as the Metals Initiative. This legislation authorized DOE to fund projects with the goals of energy-efficiency, increased competitiveness of U.S. industry, and environmental improvement. 

All of these goals are being achieved. For example, the Technology Roadmap Program has provided key technologies enabling the stunning energy and environmental achievements of the steel industry’s Ultra Light Steel Auto Body—Advanced 

Vehicle Concept (ULSAB–AVC). ULSAB–AVC has developed complete designs for 

safe, steel intensive compact and mid-size sedans that will achieve 52 miles per gallon (mpg) using gasoline, or 68 mpg if equipped with a diesel engine. To appreciate 

the impact of this accomplishment, if one million ULSAB–AVC vehicles replaced an 

equivalent number of mid-size sedans operating at the Corporate Average Fuel 

Economy standard of 27.5 miles per gallon, and were each driven 10,000 miles per 

year, the annual savings our country would realize are estimated at: 

Annual Reduced fuel consumption—171 million gallons 

Annual Cost savings at $1.75/gallon—$300 million 

Annual CO2 reductions—2.1 million tons 

It should be noted that all of the savings above are not a result of lightweightingthey are a function of the steel intensive design that includes drivetrain and design 

advances. Further, since approximately 16 million new vehicles enter service in the 

United States annually, the energy savings that can be realized if ULSAB–AVC 

technology is universally applied is enormous, approximately 0.3 quadrillion BTU, 

or nearly 20 percent of the entire energy consumed by the steel industry in a year 

(1.8 quadrillion BTU). And, based on comprehensive cost modeling, all this can be 

accomplished at no cost penalty to the consumer—that is why these technologies are 

already appearing in cars on the road today. This is clearly the type of pre-competitive research appropriate for government partnering-developing the technologies 

that lead to breakthroughs that serve the public good, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and significantly reduce greenhouse gases. The following is a brief list of 

TRP projects whose results are incorporated in the ULSAB–AVC designs: 

—TRP 9732—Study of Deformation Behavior of Light Weight Steel Structures 

Under Impact Loading (prediction of crash performance of advanced high 

strength steels and advanced materials processing). 

—TRP 9756—Cold Work Embrittlement of Interstitial Free Steels (predicting embrittlement of automotive steels). 

—TRP 9934—Development of Appropriate Resistance Spot Welding Practices for 

Transformation Hardened Steels (optimizing materials joining process for advanced high strength steels). 

—TRP 9807—Reducing the Variability of HSLA Sheet Steels (developing practices 

for consistent properties of advance high strength steels). 

—TRP 9904—Constitutive Behavior of High Strength Multiphase Steels Under 

High Strain Rate Deformation Conditions (modeling and developing the processing routes to produce advanced high strength steels). 

—TRP 0012—Characterization of Formability for New Generation of Advanced 

High Strength Steels (characterizing the key properties of next generation 

steels). 

—TRP 0015—Quantitative Measurement of Steel Phase Transformation (characterizing the key properties of advanced bar steels). 

—TRP 0038—Characterization of Fatigue and Crash Performance (generate fatigue, tensile and component test data at high strain rates for direct input for 

automotive engineering and design). 

—TRP 0101—Inclusion Optimization for Next Generation Steel Products (developing processes to’’ engineer’’ imperfections in the microstructure of sheet steels 

so that they enhance properties and steel performance). 
402

—TRP 0106—Laser Assisted Arc Welding of Advanced High Strength Steels (developing advanced joining methods for use of advance high strength steels). 

—TRP 0114—Development of Appropriate Resistance Spot Welding Practices for 

Advanced High Strength Steels (Resistance spot welding is a ‘‘gateway technology’’ for the implementation of advanced high strength steels into vehicle 

production.). 

The above Technology Roadmap Program R&D is part of the continuous process 

of advancing the science of materials. It helps the automobile and steel industries 

achieve their goals of bringing safe, affordable, energy efficient, environmentally desirable vehicles to the public. It advances the president’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

In addition, other TRP projects have made similar contributions to energy-efficiency, environmental leadership and steel industry competitiveness: 

1. New thermally-efficient steel stud designs for residential and light commercial 

applications resulting in energy savings of 2.5 percent of current consumption (0.03 

quad) may be achieved based on 25 percent of new homes using this technology. 

2. A recent study by the Florida Solar Energy Center found that metal roofing 

can save Florida homeowners 23 percent in cooling costs over conventional gray 

shingle roofs. 

3. Steels used in electrical applications result in more energy efficient motors. The 

electrical properties of Cold Rolled Motor Lamination (CRML) steels continue to improve. Only a few years ago the best CRML material available had core loss values 

of 2.0 watts/pound. CRML steel is now being produced with core loss properties less 

than 1.7 watts/pound. This 15 percent energy efficiency improvement means that 

electrical devices made from this material, such as florescent light ballasts, transformers, and motors, can be made more efficient. These savings are being realized 

in the home, commercial, and industrial application of these products. 

4. Advanced steels for bearing applications have a direct impact on the energy efficiency of equipment. Developments in steel processes in recent decades have not 

only greatly improved productivity and lowered cost, they have led to significant 

quality improvements through the reduction of the population of harmful inclusions. 

5. Process modeling—In addition to the benefits of the application of fundamental 

sciences to understand complex relationships, the application of predictive models 

allows development work to be done without disrupting the process line until the 

verification and implementation stages are reached. This minimizes development 

costs and fine tunes where and when capital is invested. The Hot Strip Mill Model 

developed under TRP and now in commercial use, is an excellent example. 

Funding for TRP projects currently under contract should be continued in fiscal 

year 2004 so they can continue to achieve the excellent returns described above. In 

addition, funds should also be provided in fiscal year 2004 so that a new group of 

TRP projects may be started to continue to advance yield improvement, materials 

science and our industry goal of increasing energy-efficiency by 10 percent by 2012. 

Your support helps us deliver these benefits to the American people sooner rather 

than later and ensures the success of an industry critical to our national security. 

Please feel free to contact me at 202–452–7206 or lkavanagh@steel.org if you require any additional information. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC POWER ASSOCIATION

The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal and other state and locally 

owned utilities throughout the United States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public 

power utilities deliver electricity to one of every seven electric consumers (about 40 

million people), serving some of the nation’s largest cities. However, the vast majority of APPA’s members serve communities with populations of 10,000 people or less. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining our fiscal year 

2004 funding priorities within jurisdiction of the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: ENERGY CONSERVATION

APPA is disappointed in the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 request of $876 million for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) energy conservation programs. We are 

confident that Congress’s prioritization of these programs in its ultimate allocation 

for fiscal year 2003 of $892 million highlighted the importance of these programs 

to the Administration. We believe that DOE’s energy conservation programs should 

be level-funded at minimum, and encourage the subcommittee to continue last 

year’s commitment of at least $892 million. 
403

FREEDOMCAR

APPA has supported the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle in the past 

and supports the Administration’s request of $158 million for the new FreedomCAR 

program. APPA believes that the availability of fuel cell technology for transportation is critical for cities and states that must achieve mandatory federal air quality standards. We appreciate the Administration’s new emphasis on refocusing research and development toward the achievement of cost-effective fuel cell vehicles. 

The fuel cell vehicle is virtually pollution-free and highly efficient. One of APPA’s 

member utilities, the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD) has done extensive research into this field and have found that even a 10 percent market penetration could reduce regulated air pollutants by more than a million tons a year and 

emissions of carbon dioxide by 60 million tons a year. 

BUILDING TECHNOLOGY ASSISTANCE & WEATHERIZATION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL

ACTIVITIES

APPA supports the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 request of $52.6 million for 

helping to increase the efficiency of commercial and residential buildings. APPA is 

particularly supportive of the emphasis on weatherization assistance as part of the 

President’s National Energy Policy and encourages the Subcommittee to provide the 

$288 million requested by the Administration for this important program. The 

weatherization assistance program helps more than 100,000 residents annually, and 

is especially critical for the working poor, elderly and disabled. This program has 

been particularly effective at helping low income citizens afford their energy bills 

while at the same time reducing energy usage. 

STATE ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM

APPA supports Congress’s prioritization of the State Energy Conservation Program and urges the Subcommittee to at least level-fund the program at $38 million 

for fiscal year 2004. State energy offices work on nearly every energy efficiency issue 

and have been extremely successful in identifying the efficiency needs of local communities, businesses and consumers and providing support for meeting those needs. 

The State Energy Conservation Program offers the ideal combination of state-level 

implementation with federal support. 

COMMUNITY ENERGY PROGRAM—REBUILD AMERICA

APPA is concerned that the Administration’s request of $9 million for fiscal year 

2004 for the Rebuild America program is a significant cut from the fiscal year 2003 

request of $20 million. The program partners with states and communities interested in using energy efficiency to help address a wide range of community priorities, but primarily facilitating improvements to commercial buildings. As part of 

the local and state governmental structure, APPA’s member utilities are uniquely 

suited to participate in these types of partnerships and encourage continued support 

for this important program. We encourage Congress to level fund this program at 

last year’s commitment. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BIOMASS ENERGY RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

This testimony pertains to the fiscal year 2004 appropriation for the research, development, and deployment (RD&D) effort performed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDAFS) on forest biomass-based energy, fuels, and 

chemicals in its Biobased Products and Bioenergy Research (BPBR) program. The 

Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA) recommends that $22.0 million be appropriated for this high-priority RD&D in fiscal year 2004. Separate statements 

have been prepared for submission on other biomass energy RD&D performed by 

the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under the Energy and Water Development Bill, and by EERE’s Office 

of Industrial Technologies under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill. 

BERA is a non-profit association based in Washington, DC. It was founded in 

1982 by researchers and private organizations that are conducting biomass research. Our objectives are to promote education and research on the production of 

energy in all its forms from virgin and waste biomass that can be economically utilized by the public, and to serve as a source of information on biomass RD&D policies and programs. Please note that BERA does not solicit or accept federal funding 

for its efforts. 
404

On behalf of BERA’s members, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 

opportunity to present our Board’s position on the funding of forest biomass RD&D. 

Specifically, BERA’s Board of Directors recommends that the appropriations for 

USDAFS’ BPBR program in fiscal year 2004 be allocated as follows. 

—Continue the research program proposed by the USDAFS; $2,000,000 was requested for fiscal year 2004. 

—Collect DOE’s forest biomass research results obtained from laboratory and field 

projects and consolidate them with those of the USDAFS, $1,500,000. 

—Assess the technical value and economics of the consolidated results with industry participation, $2,000,000. 

—Develop an optimized, advanced RD&D plan with industry participation, 

$1,500,000. 

—Initiate the RD&D plan with industry participation and cost sharing of the 

scale-up projects, $15,000,000. 

BERA urges that this program be funded starting in fiscal year 2004. 

BACKGROUND

One of the original goals of the Bioenergy/Bioproducts Initiative, which was created as a result of ‘‘The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000,’’ and Title 

IX of the Farm Bill, was to triple United States usage of bioenergy and biobased 

products. Although the timeframe has been extended up to 2015 or 2020, a strategic 

plan has been developed to reach this goal by the multi-agency Biomass Research 

and Development Board (BRDB) co-chaired by the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of Agriculture. 

Substantial increases in biomass energy and fuel consumption are clearly needed 

because of what has recently happened to U.S. crude oil, natural gas, and electricity 

markets, our continually increasing dependence on imported oil, the renewed importance of achieving U.S. energy security, and the impacts of environmental issues. 

It is time to determine whether practical biomass energy systems can be developed 

that are capable of displacing much larger amounts of fossil fuels than they have 

in the past. The amount of fossil fuels displaced by biomass energy in 2000 was 1.55 

million barrels of oil equivalent per day, approximately 79 percent of which was 

wood-based. The average amount of crude oil imported into the United States was 

9.07 million barrels per day in 2000. 

In fiscal year 2002, DOE began to restructure EERE’s biomass RD&D program. 

This process is continuing. The funds requested by DOE for biomass feedstocks are 

for infrastructure development only, such as for transportation and storage. The 

critical research to develop, plant, grow, and manage dedicated energy crops for conversion to cost-competitive energy and fuels has been terminated. DOE stated that 

other agencies or departments are better suited to handle this research, and that 

it is considered to be part of the USDA program. While DOE’s feedstock production 

program has made significant research contributions over the last 25 years, BERA 

strongly endorses the idea that the USDA should assume responsibility for this program. The USDA has a long history in biomass production and is recognized worldwide for its accomplishments in developing advanced agricultural and forest biomass 

production methods. BERA recommends that research on woody biomass production 

for energy applications be continued by the USDAFS under the Interior and Related 

Agencies Bill. Woody feedstocks are essential for the production of much larger 

amounts of affordable fuels, electricity, and bioproducts than have been realized to 

date. BERA submitted testimony in support of this RD&D by USDAFS for fiscal 

year 2003, but funding was not provided. 

The expansion of the USDAFS’ BPBR program recommended by BERA provides 

a considerably higher probability of significantly increasing the contribution of biomass to primary U.S. energy demand to help displace fossil fuel consumption. Indeed, the key to this eventuality is the development, demonstration, and deployment 

of technologies for producing low-cost forest biomass for conversion to economic supplies of energy and fuels. Forest biomass is the nation’s and the world’s largest reserve of renewable carbon resources. Without the availability of economically competitive forest biomass feedstocks, the probability of tripling or even doubling biomass energy consumption in the United States is doubtful. 

Ultimately, this program is expected to lead to commercial, sustainable energy 

plantations that are integrated with conversion processes supplied with both forest 

and waste biomass fuel and feedstocks. These biorefineries will be designed to yield 

multiple product slates that are sufficiently flexible to meet market conditions and 

demands. 

In the remaining paragraphs, I would like to elaborate on the high-priority forestry research that BERA strongly urges be continued or started. 
405

BERA RECOMMENDATIONS

Proposed USDAFS Research for Fiscal Year 2004

The USDAFS requested an appropriation of $2,000,000 for its BPBR program to 

develop new and more economical technologies for the production, management, 

harvest, and utilization of woody materials for energy and high-valued products for 

fiscal year 2004. This work builds on the USDAFS’ expertise on industrial wood recycling, wood chemistry, and wood-plastic composites; small-diameter timber harvesting and utilization; and experience in intensively managed silvicultural systems. 

The research is a natural complement to the woody feedstock production RD&D for 

energy and fuels by the USDAFS that BERA recommends be added to its overall 

program. BERA also recommends that some level of coordination of this research 

with the USDA work on fire hazard reduction for western forests be implemented 

to enhance the prospects for full use of biomass for energy across the country. 

Collection and Consolidation of DOE’s Research and Field Project Results 

DOE has conducted an extensive forest biomass production program since the 

1970’s. This research included laboratory and field projects performed by academe, 

national laboratories, research institutes, and the private sector. The program emphasized the development and selection of special species, hybrids, and clones of 

trees, and advanced growth, management, and harvesting procedures for dedicated 

energy crops. Research on short-rotation tree growth and the screening of tree species in small-scale test plots was carried out in several areas of the country. Depending on the geographic location, woody species recommended as energy feedstocks 

from the test-plot results included hybrid poplars, willow, eucalyptus, black locust, 

and others. In collaboration with DOE, BERA recommends that the documented results of these efforts be collected and consolidated with those of the USDAFS. Furthermore, it is recommended that a plan be developed and implemented for preserving the large amount of improved woody crop clonal materials produced both by 

the USDAFS and the university collaborators of DOE. 

Assessment of the Consolidated Results With Industry 

BERA recommends that selected companies be invited to join with the USDAFS 

for the purpose of evaluating the consolidated data and information compiled by the 

USDAFS. The first objective of this assessment is to carefully analyze tree species 

in terms of their potential for sustained growth in energy plantations at maximum 

yields under acceptable growth conditions in different U.S. regions. The second objective is to update and perform comparative economic analyses of conceptual system designs to assist in the prioritization of each system. Presuming the industrial 

organizations that participate in this work are experienced in large-scale, commercial tree production, their inputs will be invaluable in performing the next phase 

of this program, which consists of producing an RD&D plan. 

Development of an Optimized, Advanced RD&D Plan With Industry 

The purpose of this phase of USDAFS’ forest biomass program is to produce a 10-

year, strategic RD&D plan that continues the research necessary to obtain the data 

and information needed for optimum energy plantation design, including environmental impacts, and that targets industry cost-shared field projects to demonstrate 

medium-scale, sustainable, forest biomass and residuals production in several geographic locations. It is important to include a schedule of milestones over the life 

of the RD&D. 

Initiation of the RD&D Plan With Industry 

Considerable progress has been made on the efficient production of short-rotation 

woody crop and multi-crop systems. In addition, research on tissue culture techniques and the application of genetic engineering methods to low-cost energy crop 

production have shown promise. This research should be continued to develop advanced biomass production methods that can meet the anticipated feedstock demand. 

BERA also recommends that industry cost-shared, scale-up projects of at least 

1,000 acres in size be installed and operated in different regions of the country as 

a forerunner to commercial energy plantations in which dedicated energy crops are 

grown and harvested for use as biomass resources. The results of this work will provide sufficient operating and capital cost data to afford second generation economic 

data for larger modular systems and to perfect the design of sustainable energy 

plantations. The scale-up projects should be strategically located and should utilize 

the advanced woody biomass production methods developed in the research programs. Successful completion of this work will help biomass energy attain its potential by providing the data and information needed to implement the design, con-
406

struction, and operation of practical forest biomass production methods for sustainable energy plantations that can supply low-cost feedstock for conversion to heat, 

steam, electric power, liquid and gaseous fuels, and chemicals. 

It is expected that during the first year of this program, fiscal year 2004, site 

studies can be completed to facilitate the selection of specific areas that are deemed 

suitable for energy plantation construction, and that installation on at least one site 

can be started. DOE should be involved in this program where appropriate so that 

their work on biomass infrastructure can be applied to program goals such as the 

design and operation of integrated biomass production and conversion systems. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOB LAWRENCE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Bob Lawrence, and 

I am President of Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., a consulting firm located in Alexandria, Virginia. With me today is Ms. Patrice Courtney, a Senior Associate with 

my firm. We are here today to request full funding for the Department of Energy’s 

Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (OWIP) within the Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Specifically, we request fiscal year 2004 OWIP 

funding of $375M of which $18.8M is required by the Rebuild program under the 

Gateway Deployment line item. For the Building Technologies program, we request 

a total of $63M, the same as the fiscal year 2002 appropriated number. Cutbacks 

in the Building Technologies program have all but eliminated any outreach and education for this program. Outreach and education is essential for early adoption of 

evolving technologies and the maximization of national benefits. 

My firm and I have been involved in issues of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy since 1975, when this Subcommittee played an active and major role in 

helping to solve our country’s first, major energy crisis. Ms. Courtney is responsible 

for communications regarding energy efficiency issues in both national and statewide forums, with a particular focus on New York State. 

Buildings account for one third of all energy used in our country, once you factor 

in the significant percentage used to generate electricity to heat, cool, light, and control buildings and their occupants. In addition, most oil use in buildings occurs in 

those parts of the country where the percentage of imported oil use is the highest. 

Therefore, efficiency increases in buildings and their associated technologies offset 

directly the import of foreign oil. 

Our current efforts, overseas, remind us all too well that the U.S. economy remains significantly threatened by still-high oil prices. Energy efficiency has become 

an economic priority because it is key to reducing our vulnerability to high oil prices 

controlled by unpredictable foreign hands. Today, many U.S. states are deregulating 

electric utilities in an effort to lower electricity prices. These developments have important implications for energy efficiency in building technology. 

Our purpose today, Mr. Chairman, is to support the Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program (WIP), which has been uniquely successful in its campaign to 

help Americans save energy. For example, its Rebuild America program, for which 

$18.8 million is requested, continues to play an important role. Through Rebuild, 

completed energy efficiency renovations are saving communities nearly $131 million 

each year, along with an annual 9 trillion BTUs of energy. (That’s the equivalent 

of 8,200 oil tanker trucks in line for 113 miles.) This has resulted in savings of $1.5 

billion in cumulative energy costs in participating communities. To date, Rebuild 

has generated $601 million in private sector investment, and resulted in more than 

529 million square feet of renovated building space—an area equivalent to 16,000 

schools. In addition, 569 million square feet in new projects are committed or under 

way. Every DOE dollar invested has produced $18.43 in annual community energy 

savings and $9.38 in private energy efficiency investments. 

The program has 500∂ participating communities in 54 states and U.S. territories. State energy offices play an integral role in its implementation, working with 

individuals, businesses and institutions committed to improving the quality of life, 

building by building, via energy efficiency retrofits or new construction. Middle income and lower income Americans are direct beneficiaries of Rebuild America both 

through direct labor dollars and the overall, positive effect on the economy. 

Rebuild America is a working model for leveraging taxpayer dollars with private 

investment to produce significant energy cost savings. For example, Rebuild is actively working with more than 35 associations and trade groups in its Strategic 

Partners initiative, and with 140 companies, including Johnson Controls, Siemens, 

TRANE, Sempra Energy Services and others, in its Business Partners project. 

One such strategic partnership proceeds from the Memorandum of Understanding 

between the DOE and the American Institute of Architects (AIA). This has resulted 
407

in a number of collaborative activities between Rebuild and the architecture community, such as the Solar Decathlon, a design competition that involves hundreds of 

architecture students, and a Rebuild-sponsored mentoring program in which Howard University architecture students are teaching middle school students about design issues, including energy efficiency and sustainability. Going forward, the AIA 

and Rebuild plan to select leading examples of buildings to demonstrate the metrics 

associated with environmental performance. For its part, the AIA will continue to 

support DOE program demonstration activities and participate in technology transfer activities included in High Performance Commercial Buildings Roadmap implementation, Solar Decathlon, Energy Smart Schools, and Labs21, and will disseminate the results. 

Energy Smart Schools (ESS) is a key Rebuild project, for good reasons. A nationwide survey conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated a conservative $112 billion to complete needed repairs, renovations, and modernizations for 

the nation’s public schools. According to the DOE, the nation spends $6 billion each 

year on energy costs for schools—about 25 percent more than necessary. 

Around the nation, a number of school districts are using Energy Smart School 

assistance. The College Station Independent School District in Texas, for example, 

used Rebuild’s partnership system to team up with Texas A&M’s Energy Systems 

Laboratory, and Texas Energy Engineering Services Inc., which audited the district’s schools to determine needed energy retrofits. Rebuild helped the district locate 5.6 percent financing that required up-front capital outlays. The loan will be 

repaid by 2009 with projected annual energy savings of $183,000. Ultimately, the 

school district financed $1.5 million of its capital improvements with help from Energy Smart Schools, for improvements that included new chillers, boilers and DX 

units; improved lighting; energy management system upgrades, and the launch of 

continuous building commissioning to ensure efficient operations and maintenance. 

This school district and many others are working to incorporate the Energy Smart 

Schools’ high performance school design guidelines, which have been developed with 

recommendations that vary by climate, geography and energy mix. 

Here are some examples of other WIP programs and how they’re saving energy 

and dollars: 

Residential Building Integration/Research and Development (formerly Building 

America).—$15.2 million is requested. Great strides have been made in the way we 

construct and operate our buildings; we have documented energy savings of 30–50 

percent at little or no cost increase. But there’s much more work to be done. This 

group is working to realize a 60 percent reduction in overall residential building energy use compared with the model International Energy Conservation Code of 2000. 

These activities also include the exciting work being done in the Zero Energy Buildings program. Additionally, the Residential Building Energy Codes group’s work includes important new initiatives to develop new code compliance tools for residential 

construction to foster a ‘‘whole buildings’’ approach in new and existing buildings. 

In the area of Commercial Buildings Integration, $4.9 million is sought to continue its R&D. This will include guidance for four new building projects that will 

document improvements to the design process allowing up to 50 percent reduction 

in energy use. Using the Commercial Building roadmap, the group also is focusing 

on controls, indoor air quality, and technologies for the retrofit of existing buildings. 

Wireless sensors, whole building controls systems and retrofit technologies, and ventilation technologies will be key areas of investigation. The codes group seeks to continue its revisions to the IECC 2006 Edition/ASHRAE Standard 90.1 2004 to further 

promote energy efficient window assemblies. The objective is to simplify code compliance so that builders can use the advanced technologies developed by the High Performance Buildings effort, and to enable the cost-effective construction of Zero Energy Buildings. 

State and Community Programs.—The State Energy Program (SEP) is the only 

federally funded, state-based program administered by the DOE that provides resources directly to the states. WIP seeks to stay level at $38.7 million in fiscal year 

2004 funding for the SEP. The SEP has become a strong foundation for success in 

reducing energy use in buildings, working at the community level. Rebuild America 

contributes greatly to the SEP’s success, as it delivers technical support that states 

and localities require. Recent studies have documented that each $1 of SEP funding 

results in annual energy savings of 1.17 million source BTUs and annual cost savings of $7.23. Additionally, each $1 of SEP funding leverages $3.54 from non-federal 

sources, not including public benefit funds. 

WIP leads in the technology transfer to professionals in building technologies. For 

example, on its Web site is a powerful software tool that can be downloaded for free. 

EnergyPlus, formerly known as DOE–2, is a new generation building energy simula-
408

tion program designed for modeling buildings with associated heating, cooling, lighting, ventilating, and other energy flows. 

In conclusion, it has been shown via audits and other analyses, that the DOE 

Buildings programs, however their names have changed over the years, have provided tens of billions of dollars in benefits to our country measured in more efficient 

energy use, less pollutant emission, and lower energy prices. Not measured in this 

dollar number is the significantly increased health of our citizens as a result of 

these benefits. This taxpayer investment pays tremendous dividends. 

During the 1980s, funding was drastically cut for energy-efficiency R&D. When 

the programs were revisited in the early 1990s, lost ground had to be regained. Research successes are now turning into commercially viable products. It is crucially 

important to cost share the field testing phase and to push new products through 

the R&D pipeline to market acceptance, particularly in the fragmented building industry. 

Mr. Chairman, the required annual investment in Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is less than one percent of what we invest in defense, but its purpose 

is no less important. It is an investment in our economy, our standard of living, and 

our very way of life. 

We thank you for your attention to this matter. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BIOMASS ENERGY RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

This testimony pertains to the request for appropriations in fiscal year 2004 by 

the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

(EERE), for mission-oriented biomass energy research, development, and deployment (RD&D) in the Industrial Technologies Program funded under the Interior and 

Related Agencies Bill. The Biomass Energy Research Association (BERA) recommends that $36.4 million be appropriated for these high-priority biomass programs in fiscal year 2004. Separate statements have been submitted in support of 

biomass RD&D performed by EERE under the Energy and Water Development Bill, 

and on forest biomass energy production by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDAFS) under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill. 

On behalf of BERA’s members, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the 

opportunity to present the recommendations of BERA’s Board of Directors for the 

high-priority programs that we strongly urge be continued, restored, or started. 

BERA is a non-profit association based in Washington, DC. It was founded in 1982 

by researchers and private organizations that are conducting biomass research. Our 

objectives are to promote education and research on the production of energy, fuels, 

and chemicals from virgin and waste biomass that can be economically utilized by 

the public, and to serve as a source of information on biomass RD&D policies and 

programs. BERA does not solicit or accept federal funding for its efforts. 

The specific programs and budgets that BERA recommends for fiscal year 2004 

are: 

—Incorporation of the Bioenergy and Bioproducts Initiative (BBI) created as a result of ‘‘The Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000’’ and Title IX of 

the Farm Bill, into EERE’s Industrial Technologies Program ($10,000,000), 

mainly for cost-shared scale-up projects. 

—Continuation of commodity organic chemicals-from-biomass RD&D started in 

fiscal year 1999 ($8,800,000). 

—Restoration of advanced black liquor gasification RD&D and its scale-up 

($13,600,000). This program is aimed at developing two different processes, each 

of which has been cost-shared by industry; federal support has ended. Without 

continued federal support at this time, successful development in the existing 

facilities is highly unlikely. The technology is essential to enable the U.S. pulp 

and paper industry to reach energy self-sufficiency. 

—Continued development of advanced biomass technologies for the forest and 

paper products industries ($4,000,000). 

PROGRAM INTEGRATION, COORDINATION, AND MANAGEMENT

For several years, BERA has urged that all biomass-related research funded by 

DOE should be coordinated and managed at DOE Headquarters so that the program 

managers are heavily involved in this activity. We are pleased to note that this 

process, which began in fiscal year 2002, has continued in fiscal year 2003. BERA 

congratulates DOE on the progress made in restructuring the program and its management. BERA also congratulates DOE and USDA for the new spirit of working 

together and coordinating the programs of each department to increase the usage 

of agricultural and forestry biomass for the production of much larger amounts of 
409

affordable fuels, electricity, and biomass-derived products than have been realized 

in the past. These efforts are expected to help facilitate the transition of waste and 

virgin biomass in the USA into major sources of renewable energy, fuels, and chemicals. 

BERA urges that the BBI be incorporated into the overall federal biomass research program. Without it, the time table for this transition will be stretched out 

for several decades and possibly never happen except to a very limited extent for 

niche markets. Large, strategically located, energy plantations are ultimately envisaged in which waste biomass acquisition and virgin biomass production systems are 

integrated with conversion systems and operated as analogs of petroleum refineries 

to afford flexible slates of multiple products from multiple feedstocks. Unfortunately, 

relatively large amounts of capital and inducements are required to get the private 

sector involved in developing even modest size projects in the field. So to help implement this program, BERA includes the BBI as a line-item in its annual testimony. 

BERA also continues to recommend that implementation of the BBI should include identification of each federal agency that provides funding related to biomass 

energy development, each agency’s programs, and the expenditures by each agency. 

DOE and the USDA have initiated this process. This is an on-going activity that 

should be expanded to include other agencies and departments and help fine-tune 

the critical pathways to program goals. Continual analysis of the information compiled should enable the coordination of all federally funded biomass energy programs through the BRDB to facilitate new starts focused on high priority targets, 

and help to avoid duplication of efforts, unnecessary expenditures, and continuation 

of projects that have been completed or that do not target program goals. Full implementation of the BBI will enhance the value of the federal expenditures on biomass research to the country in many different ways. 

BERA RECOMMENDATIONS

BERA’s project recommendations consist of a balanced program of mission-oriented RD&D on conversion research and technology transfer to the private sector. 

Advanced conversion processes and power generation technologies, alternative liquid 

transportation fuels, and hydrogen-from-biomass processes are emphasized. Biomass 

production RD&D for energy uses is ultimately expected to be done by the USDA. 

BERA continues to recommend that at least 50 percent of the federal funds appropriated for biomass research, excluding the funds for scale-up projects, are used to 

sustain a national biomass science and technology base via sub-contracts for industry and universities. While it is desirable for the national laboratories to coordinate 

this research, increased support for U.S. scientists and engineers in industry, academe, and research institutes that are unable to fund biomass research will encourage commercialization of emerging technologies and serious consideration of new 

ideas. It will also help to expand the professional development and expertise of researchers committed to the advancement of biomass technologies. 

To improve management and coordination of biomass research, EERE has consolidated most of its biomass RD&D under a single, integrated Biomass and Biorefinery 

Systems Program. As a result of the restructuring started in fiscal year 2002, a few 

major changes were made in biomass RD&D funded under the Interior and Related 

Agencies Bill in the Industrial Technologies Program (formerly the Office of Industrial Technologies). The two subcategories of biomass RD&D in this program are 

now called Advanced Biomass Technology: Products Development, and Systems Integration and Production. 

Bioenergy and Bioproducts Initiative (BBI) 

The original goal of the BBI created as a result of ‘‘The Biomass Research and 

Development Act of 2000,’’ and Title IX of the Farm Bill, was to triple the usage 

of bioenergy and biobased products. Congress has provided annual funding for the 

BBI since fiscal year 2000. A strategic plan has been developed by the multi-agency 

Biomass Research and Development Board (BRDB), co-chaired by the Secretaries of 

Energy and Agriculture, to achieve this goal. Its achievement is necessary because 

of environmental, energy security, and projected fuel supply issues, and our increasing dependence on imported oil. We must determine whether practical biomass systems capable of displacing much larger amounts of fossil fuels can be developed. The 

fossil fuel displaced by waste and virgin biomass in 2000 was 1.55 million BOE per 

day, approximately 79 percent of which was wood-based. 

BERA strongly urges that the BBI be added to the Industrial Technologies Program in fiscal year 2004 at the funding level recommended by BERA, and that the 

highest priority be given to development of this program component as a line item. 

BERA recommends that most of the funding for the BBI be used for scale-up. 
410

Advanced Biomass Technology: Products Development (Formerly Industries of the 

Future [Specific]). 

Organic Commodity Chemicals from Biomass (Formerly Agriculture Vision).—This 

program was started in fiscal year 1999. Projects were selected that used a variety 

of biomass feedstocks to produce industrial products such as coatings, lubricants, 

chemicals, plastics, and composite materials. The overall goal was to develop the 

technologies necessary to displace 10 percent of the fossil feedstocks with biomass 

for the production of organic commodity chemicals and chemical products. When the 

goal is fully implemented, it was projected to reduce fossil feedstock usage by 0.189 

quad in 2010, and 0.545 quad in 2020. BERA indicated in previous statements that 

it is important to include the process energy displaced too. In 1999, for example, 

total fossil feedstock converted to chemicals was approximately 1.26 million BOE/

day. Ten percent of this value is 126,000 BOE/day, while the corresponding process 

energy consumption was about 136,000 BOE/day, or a total of about 0.6 quad annually. The potential energy savings is evident. 

EERE reported last year that no new research solicitations would be issued in fiscal year 2003, and that the existing program would be integrated with the EEREwide bioenergy and bioproducts solicitations that focus on biorefinery development. 

However, the existing university grants may be increased, and new solicitations 

may be issued in this area. Twelve active projects were scheduled to be continued. 

They focused on novel separations technology; the production of plastics, foams, adhesives, and coatings based on sugars and vegetable oils; lower cost and energy use 

in harvesting, pre-processing, and biomass storage; and the modification of crops to 

reduce the cost, processing requirements, and energy consumption in the use and 

conversion of the crops to products. It was expected that 2 projects will involve 

scale-up to pilot-scale demonstrations with industry, and 1 or 2 will involve commercialization projects on new biopolymers or solvents. Technology breakthroughs were 

expected that will improve plant composition for conversion to products, and provide 

novel, lower cost, less energy-intensive harvesting and storage technology. EERE requested a total of $8,808,000 for fiscal year 2004 to continue this re- search under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill. This consists of $3,304,000 for 

thermomochemical conversion products, $5,104,000 for bioconversion products, and 

$400,000 for technical management. The goals in fiscal year 2004 are to evaluate 

the existing portfolio of projects in fiscal year 2003, to select and continue those 

projects that are commercially promising with significant potential for energy savings, to complete validation at the pilot scale in partnership with industry of one 

new biobased product with long-term potential sales greater than 2 billion lb/yr for 

economic, technical, and product viability, and to increase product yields and energy 

efficiency in key chemical product chains by more than 30 percent. 

BERA believes that this effort is very worthwhile. Successful implementation of 

the commodity chemicals-from-biomass research is expected to result in many regional and national benefits because virtually all commodity organic chemicals and 

products—including plastics and petroleum- and natural gas-derived chemicals—can 

be manufactured from biomass. Focusing on reducing the energy intensity of established organic chemical commodities as well as on new products where appropriate 

has a high probability of commercial success and of displacing substantial amounts 

of fossil fuels. 

Systems Integration and Production 

Industrial Gasification (Formerly Industries of the Future [Crosscutting], Combustion and the gasification projects from the Forest and Paper Products Vision).—The 

largest part of this research, which started several years ago, was the industry costshared program to develop and commercialize the gasification of black liquor. In the 

appropriations request for fiscal year 2004, DOE states that funding for technology 

development and validation appear to be within industry’s capability, so funding is 

not requested in view of the industry’s ability to pursue further development without DOE support. While industry has provided all funding for a small-scale, black 

liquor gasification facility in Canada, there has been no such commitment from 

paper companies for projects in the United States. Therefore, BERA strongly urges 

that this program be continued with industry cost-sharing to the point where industry will assume all financial risks. 

There are several reasons that support BERA’s position. Black liquor gasification 

provides a pathway to combined electric power generation and the recovery and recycling of chemicals for the pulp and paper industry at much higher efficiencies 

than the industry currently realizes from combustion methods. Presuming there is 

wide-spread acceptance of one or both of the two basic processes under development—high-temperature processing at the facility in North Carolina, and low-temperature processing at the facility in Virginia scheduled to be operational in the fall 
411

of 2003—adoption by the pulp and paper industry is projected to eliminate all power 

purchases and to make the industry energy self-sufficient. Twenty GW of renewable 

generating capacity, which is about twice the capacity of all biomass-fueled generating systems today, could be realized. Also, it is estimated that industry’s use of 

this technology would reduce carbon emissions by more than 20 million tonnes each 

year. The pulp and paper industry currently purchases over 90 TWh of electricity 

annually. 

Finally, it is important to emphasize that the pulp and paper industry has been 

involved in cost-sharing these programs since they were started at DOE, and has 

a sizable investment in this RD&D to date. The benefits of their participation will 

probably be lost if the programs are zeroed-out at this time. According to discussions 

with industry representatives during review of this research by BERA, the industry 

is not expected to continue the work without DOE support because of its current 

economic position and the risks involved. 

Forest and Paper Products Vision.—Excluding the energy savings from black liquor gasification, EERE staff estimates this effort can reduce fossil energy usage by 

0.080 quad in 2010, and 0.258 quad in 2020. This basic assessment, along with economic analyses, when applied to development of this program, will help ensure its 

success. The program has significant matching funds from industry and continues 

to show significant value in addressing both national and industry priorities. 

The program for fiscal year 2003 was described as follows: Sustainable Forestry 

consists of approximately 8 projects on biotechnology, tree physiology, and sustainable soil productivity, including the continuation of studies to develop process models to predict the effect of forest management on growth and productivity on managed forests; Energy Performance consists of approximately 12 projects on efficiency, 

heat recovery, wood and paper drying, deposit formation in boilers, and corrosionresistant materials for black liquor gasifiers; Environmental Performance consists of 

approximately 7 projects to develop advanced pollution prevention technologies, reduce pollution abatement costs, and demonstration of volatile organic compound 

emissions reductions at a forest products mill; Improved Capital Effectiveness consists of approximately 10 projects focused on system and process efficiency and materials of construction and fabrication; Recycling consists of approximately 7 projects 

to reduce energy use and fiber deterioration in recycling, improving separation technologies, expanding the use of recycled fibers, and optimizing drying processes; Sensors and Controls consists of 5 projects on the development of actuators and control 

devices, process and product measurement and modeling, data interpretation, and 

a wireless microwave-based moisture sensor in a wood-drying kiln. 

EERE has requested funding of $4,021,000 under the Interior and Related Agencies Bill for fiscal year 2004. One of the goals is to support voluntary efforts by the 

American Forest & Paper Association and other industry organizations to improve 

their energy efficiency and environmental performance through the industry’s Agenda 2020. This activity will include cost-shared research. In addition, those activities 

with the highest long-term energy savings potential will be continued such as development of new paper dewatering techniques, advanced sustainable forestry projects, 

scale-up of solid waste recovery technology, and the selection of new projects that 

help improve energy efficiency and environmental performance that industry would 

not undertake without federal support. 

BERA recommends that this program be continued at the requested funding level. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC GEOLOGY, THE UNIVERSITY OF

TEXAS AT AUSTIN

Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Bureau of Economic Geology’s perspective on fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Department of Energy Fossil Energy Budget. The President’s budget proposes deep cuts to the U.S. Department of 

Energy’s Fossil Energy Research and Development, specifically the National Energy 

Technology Laboratory (NETL) and the National Petroleum Technology Office 

(NPTO) programs. I understand that the Oil Technology budget was reduced from 

$56.2 million in 2002 to $42.3 million in 2003 to $15.0 million in 2004, and the Natural Gas Technology budget was kept level from $44.1 million in 2002 to $47.3 million in 2003 and reduced to $26.6 million in 2004. 

These reductions come at a time when private sector spending on fossil energy 

research is at a several-decade low and falling, university enrollments in geosciences 

and petroleum engineering are at 40-year lows, oil and natural gas demand represents 60 percent of all energy demand combined and is rising in percentage and 

absolute terms owing to increased overall energy demand, imports of oil and natural 

gas by percentage continue to rise and impact national security, and oil and gas re-
412

sources that remain—although potentially abundant—will require new and advanced technologies. The time is critical for a changed model from the past, a model 

that includes increased Federal awareness of the changed nature of the private energy sector, leveraging of the very real opportunities for private-public partnerships, 

and public awareness of the economic and environmental benefits that will result 

from same. 

CONSUMPTION: FOSSIL ENERGY CONSUMPTION IS RISING AND THE TREND IS TOWARD

NATURAL GAS

The past 20 years (1980–1999) have seen a steady and predictable decrease in the 

percentage of global energy consumption satisfied by oil (46 percent down to 40 percent) and coal (26 percent down to 22 percent), and an associated increase in the 

percentage of global energy consumption satisfied by a combination of natural gas, 

nuclear, and other renewables (28 percent up to 38 percent). From 1980 to 1999 

total global energy consumption increased by nearly 35 percent (from 282 to 379 

quads). During the same period, U.S. total energy consumption increased 23 percent 

(from 78 to 97 quads). 

In contrast to global consumption, which shows a trend away from coal and oil 

to natural gas, nuclear, and renewables, the U.S. energy consumption mix has remained flat for two decades to a point where today it is nearly identical to the global 

energy mix (coal 22 percent, oil 39 percent, and natural gas 23 percent). To maintain a flat oil and coal consumption curve, the United States bears the security risks 

associated with 60 percent and rising oil imports and the resultant air quality emissions from coal-fired electric plants. Importantly, fossil fuels account for 84 percent 

of global and U.S. energy consumption today. More importantly, for reasons including energy efficiency, environmental well-being, economic stability, health of the future energy workforce, supply distribution, mitigation of an oil crisis, and national 

security, U.S. energy policy and associated legislation should encourage what Jesse 

Ausubel describes as ‘‘decarbonization’’—the changing energy mix toward natural 

gas, nuclear, and other renewables. 

THE CHANGED FACE OF INDUSTRY: PERMANENT DECREASE IN PRIVATE TECHNOLOGY

AND RESEARCH

The oil and gas business is, and will remain, a technical one. Drilling and operational technologies have advanced to a point where virtually any land drilling location is technically feasible, ocean water depth is less and less a limiting factor, oil 

and gas fields can be developed using multilateral well bores from a single vertical 

well bore, downhole logging tools provide remarkable information about the rockfluid system, seismic data have evolved to a point where some depositional systems 

lend themselves to direct hydrocarbon detection, all aided by the seemingly endless 

improvements in computer—speed, memory, disk, visualization—capabilities. These 

and other advancements have combined to improve efficiency across the oil and gas 

industry significantly. In fact, while manpower in the industry has decreased nearly 

70 percent in the past two decades, global production of oil and natural gas has 

steadily increased. 

The oil and gas industry changed considerably in the last two decades. Historically, the lion’s share of the research and development that resulted in the creation 

and application of advanced technology and enhanced efficiency was funded by the 

private sector. Private companies each had research—later to be renamed technology—labs, and they competed for the best intellectual talent from universities, 

and with each other to develop advancements that would provide differentiating 

competitive advantage and allow for more expeditious and economic discovery and 

development of oil and gas. Those days are gone, as are most of the research labs—

Amoco, ARCO, Conoco, Texaco, Chevron, Marathon, Mobil, Phillips, and Unocal—

and much of the R&D spending by petroleum companies—fallen over 100 percent 

in the past decade. 

Major companies and large independents can no longer afford to operate R&D facilities because the payout time for commercialization of research—commonly on the 

order of 3 to 10 years—far exceeds what the capital markets and commodity price 

cycles will bear. In order to meet the quarterly market demands, the private sector 

has had to focus every effort on reduced cycle time, replacement of reserves (largely 

through acquisition), quarterly return on investment, and profit. 
413

THE NEED FOR TECHNOLOGY: OIL AND NATURAL GAS WILL REQUIRE INCREASED R&T IN

THE FUTURE

Oil.—Oil represents a bridge to the natural gas and hydrogen future. Increased 

production of known reserves (reserve growth) via enhanced oil recovery (EOR) 

projects will continue to account for more U.S. oil than new discoveries. 

Efficient EOR requires advanced reservoir characterization and technology. These 

projects in the United States will be conducted largely by the independent producer, 

who does not have staff or resources for high-level R&D. Federal policy and investment in oil research, technology, and incentives should be directed almost exclusively toward the independent for EOR. Is this corporate welfare? No more than investing in clean coal technology, wind turbines, or fuel cells. It is simply a wise Federal investment in the U.S. energy future. An environmental benefit of EOR is that 

no new lands will be impacted. 

Natural Gas.—Natural gas (1) is an efficient fuel, (2) has significant environmental advantages over coal and oil, (3) is more broadly distributed across the 

globe, which, once the transportation networks are established, will provide longterm price, economic stability, and security benefits, and (4) will serve as feedstock 

for hydrogen in a hydrogen economy. The global resource potential of natural gas 

is very large. To date, natural gas has been produced largely in association with oil, 

called conventional gas. About one-third of U.S. annual production of natural gas 

comes from sources not associated with oil called unconventional gas, such as coalbed methane, shale gas, and basin-centered and tight gas. Other unconventional gas 

sources include subsalt, ultra deep (>15,000 ft), and gas hydrates. Combined with 

conventional gas, these unconventional sources represent the future of the global 

natural gas supply. Because their behavior and distribution are not as well understood, exploration and exploitation will require significant research and technology 

investment, both Federally and privately. 

A BETTER DIRECTION: A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WILL FACILITATE A SMOOTH

TRANSITION

We have before us a remarkable opportunity for a public-private partnership that 

will lead the world into the natural gas economy. For the foreseeable future, a balance in energy sources is critical to satisfy global demand. Stalwarts such as oil, 

and to some degree coal, will remain prominent sources of global energy for at least 

the next several decades. But these are sunset sources of energy, and Federal technology investment should be couched accordingly. Dollars spent on new research initiatives in coal are dollars spent against natural global trends. National oil independence is highly unlikely, but energy independence is achievable with a balanced 

investment in a mix of energy sources. 

Oil and gas research programs across Federal agencies have been targeted for 

massive budget cuts each year for the past several years. The fiscal year 2004 DOE 

budget requested of Congress for research directed at major U.S. energy production 

and consumption represents 3 percent of the total DOE budget. Of that 3 percent, 

only 2 percent is for oil, and 3 percent is for natural gas. The remainder of the 3 

percent is for coal (40 percent), renewables (39 percent), and nuclear (16 percent). 

Let me say that a different way: of the $23.4 billion DOE budget, only $26.6 million 

(0.1 percent) is for natural gas, and $15 million (0.1 percent) is for oil. Oil and natural gas account for 65 percent of the nation’s energy supply but only 0.2 percent 

of the proposed fiscal year 2004 DOE budget for oil and gas research! Combine these 

essentially nonexistent Federal dollars with decreases in the private sector, and 

there appears to be no future for young people in the oil and gas energy field. University statistics reflect this, as U.S. geoscience and petroleum engineering enrollments are at a 35-year low. 

For the next several years, Federal investments must be redirected to focus on 

Federal-private-university partnerships that help bridge the gap to a natural gas 

economy, including (1) the continued production of coal with some ‘‘clean coal’’ research dollars redirected to natural gas, (2) continued renewable and nuclear energy 

research, (3) enhanced oil recovery research in support of independent producers 

($150 million), and (4) research and technology across the upstream to downstream 

natural gas spectrum ($300 million). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CATERPILLAR INC. 

Caterpillar Inc. appreciates the opportunity to present its comments for the record 

addressing the Department of Energy fiscal year 2004 budget request for heavy-duty 

transportation R&D within the Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies 
414

(FCVT.) Caterpillar Inc., a Fortune 100 company headquartered in Peoria, Illinois, 

is the world’s largest manufacturer of construction and mining equipment and diesel 

and natural gas engines used in a variety of applications. We are the leading worldwide supplier of heavy-duty off-road vehicles and diesel engines for medium and 

heavy-duty on-road trucks, competing globally primarily from a U.S. manufacturing 

base. 

Our longstanding partnership with the Department of Energy has resulted in the 

development of an R&D technology road map to assure that project goals are consistent with national priorities and are fiscally responsible. The building blocks for 

Caterpillar’s innovative, fuel-efficient and clean Advanced Combustion Emissions 

Reduction Technology (ACERT) are the direct result of collaborative R&D efforts between our company and the DOE. 

As such, Caterpillar is concerned with the significant reductions in key line items 

in the fiscal year 2004 FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program budget submission. Caterpillar understands the need for the Department to focus attention on 

emerging technologies such as fuel cells and hydrogen power. But, we believe it is 

equally important to maintain and accelerate R&D efforts that will provide ‘‘bridge 

technologies’’ to meet the needs of our transportation industry through this decade 

and into the next. Our comments will focus on six program areas that provide the 

collaboration and funding of these ‘‘bridge technologies’’ that are essential to improving the fuel efficiency and retaining the competitiveness of our nation’s commercial 

transportation sector. 

Heavy Truck Engine.—The Heavy Truck Engine Program, with a fiscal year 2004 agency request of $7.0 million, is competitively bid and designed to respond to the 

impact on fuel efficiency of upcoming federal emissions standards. These emissions 

reductions targeted for model year 2007 and beyond could result in a five to ten percent fuel penalty for heavy-duty trucks, which currently consume 30 percent of onroad transportation fuel. 

The primary focus of this R&D program is to develop technologies that will enable 

engine manufacturers to meet federal emissions requirements by 2006 while improving fuel economy by ten percent. The technological complexities and short time 

frame necessitates a collaborative, 50–50 cost shared effort with the Department of 

Energy and the federal laboratories to maximize R&D resources. Caterpillar’s focus 

in this program includes the development of advanced fuel and combustion systems, 

exhaust aftertreatment systems and friction reduction to help improve fuel efficiency. 

Now that we are three years into this program, we have learned that the technical challenges are even greater than originally expected. Significant fuel penalties 

are a near certainty unless a technology breakthrough is created through this well 

focused, competitively bid, collaborative program. Progress on HCCI (Homogeneous 

Charge Compression Ignition) combustion with near zero emissions has been encouraging and holds great promise for all commercial trucks and off-road equipment. 

However, much work remains to provide the overall control and power capability 

needed for market acceptance. In addition, the application of exhaust aftertreatment 

technologies has numerous challenges that this program is addressing. If adequate 

funding is provided, there is a reasonable possibility to deliver a diesel engine demonstration by 2006 that will enable the industry to meet the 2007 emissions regulations with improved fuel efficiency. 

Caterpillar strongly urges the subcommittee to provide fiscal year 2004 funding 

for this line item at $13.5 million (fiscal year 2003 actual was $12.5 million) to reflect the urgency of pulling forward technologies to meet the environmental and 

commercial challenges facing our transportation system. 

Light Truck Engine.—This program, with an agency request of $13.1 million (a 

$2.0 million decrease from fiscal year 2002 actual), targets the development of compression ignition engine technologies for light-duty applications (trucks, sport utility 

vehicles and vans). It is focused on achieving a 50 percent improvement in vehicle 

miles per gallon over comparable production vehicles. This 50 percent cost-shared 

program, in its final year of funding, involves multiple industry teams comprised of 

heavy-duty engine and light-duty vehicle manufacturers, plus significant involvement of the DOE laboratories. 

Like the Heavy Truck Engine Program, the Light Truck program addresses national energy security concerns and offers a tremendous return on taxpayer investment. For example, a 50 percent market penetration of fuel-efficient light trucks 

could result in a half-million barrels per day of oil saved, reducing our dependence 

on imported Mideast OPEC oil by over 20 percent. This could translate into a $10.7 

billion annual saving in fuel costs to our economy. As our reliance on foreign oil continues unabated, the development of fuel efficient, cleaner burning technologies for 

the largest segment of the light-duty vehicle market is critically important. 
415

Caterpillar’s focus in the program is to maximize key enabling technologies essential to improving fuel efficiency and emissions reductions. Again, HCCI is a key 

building block of our strategy to achieve the ultra low emission levels required for 

light duty trucks. The HCCI combustion approach applies even better to the light 

duty operating cycle. Light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles spend the vast 

majority of time at light loads where HCCI works best. The fundamental HCCI 

work is similar to the effort underway in the Heavy Truck Engine program. However, the light-duty application is different, especially the duty cycle, aftertreatment 

and systems integration requirements. Caterpillar’s strategy is to develop the fuel 

and air system technology that is the key enabler for HCCI combustion and work 

with light truck manufacturers to incorporate this technology into vehicles to dramatically reduce emissions of diesel engines. 

Based on the genuine progress made in this program to date, and the enormous 

potential impact on fuel efficiency, Caterpillar strongly urges the subcommittee to 

increase the funding for this program to $15 million, in line with the amount approved by Congress for fiscal year 2003. We would also like to strongly suggest that 

this program be continued for 2 additional years to complete the work. 

Off-Highway Engine R&D.—According to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, non-road diesel engine emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) will comprise 

38 percent of all mobile source NOx emissions by 2010 with diesel particulates (PM) 

accounting for 60 percent of all mobile source PM emissions. The USEPA has initiated a phased-in emission reduction timetable. Tier 2 regulations began in 2001, 

with Tier 3 regulations scheduled for implementation beginning in 2006. Without 

major technological breakthroughs, these emission requirements will cause a significant increase in fuel use. And while some technologies developed for on-road engines 

can be transferred to non-road applications, the lack of cooling air flow to the engines, differing power demands, and use of extremely high sulfur fuel necessitate 

the development of new technologies to meet the demands of off-highway equipment. In fiscal year 2003 Congress increased the funding level to $3.5 million, earmarking the funds for emissions R&D, fuel cell R&D and locomotive R&D. However, 

DOE has terminated the program in fiscal year 2004. Caterpillar strongly supports 

retaining the fiscal year 2003 congressional funding level of $3.5 million with $2.0 

million earmarked for high efficiency off-highway earthmoving equipment. 

Combustion and Emissions Control.—An important element of this comprehensive 

program, currently underway at Sandia Livermore, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories, focuses on the need to understand fundamental combustion processes and the development of computer modeling of these processes and 

validation on laboratory engines. The development of sophisticated computer modeling is critically important for the timely, cost-effective introduction of future clean 

and efficient power systems for a variety of engine applications. This program funds 

several Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) working on 

the development of exhaust aftertreatment technologies requiring the unique equipment and personnel expertise of the DOE national laboratories. 

Caterpillar urges the subcommittee to reinstate program funding at the fiscal 

2003 level of $23.5 million, allocated equally between light-duty (FreedomCAR) and 

heavy-duty (21CT) projects. 

Advanced Propulsion Materials.—New and improved materials are a necessary 

and key enabler for many engine system programs. With the recent breakthroughs 

in new, clean and efficient combustion regimes in our DOE programs, e.g. full and 

part mode HCCI, the development of new and improved materials is critically important. Along with the commitment to this breakthrough technology are the engine 

structural challenges in accommodating the much higher pressure rise rates HCCI 

creates. These are beyond the traditional design options with current materials. So 

along with the combustion development we also must advance the materials technology to assure a commercially viable breakthrough engine. 

The current fiscal year 2004 line item request for heavy-duty propulsion materials 

is $5.85 million. To meet our future goals, an additional $3 million could be very 

well utilized, to address HCCI structural needs and accelerate aftertreatment development in areas showing fresh promise. We urge the subcommittee to increase the 

Fiscal 2004 funding level to $8.85 million. 

Fuels Technology Subprogram.—Two activities conducted within this subprogram 

have had the active participation and support of the heavy-duty diesel engine industry. Unfortunately, both programs have been terminated for fiscal year 2004. In the 

first instance, the Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels (APBF) activity for heavy-duty 

engines began with an evaluation of new fuel formulations and their impact on the 

two most promising types of future aftertreatment systems. The introduction of reliable aftertreatment devices with the most cost effective and compatible fuel for 

heavy-duty engines is critically important to meeting our goals of cleaner air and 
416

improved fuel efficiencies. Congress approved $8.2 million in fiscal year 2003 for the 

heavy-duty component of this program and we strongly urge Congress to fund the 

heavy-duty portion at that level again in fiscal year 2004. 

Another activity in this subprogram addresses Environmental Impacts. The data 

from the source apportionment and ambient ozone studies conducted by this subprogram are the only accurate measurements available and are critically important to 

identifying the role and contributions of mobile emissions to air quality. Despite the 

obvious importance of these activities, no other agency has been willing to fund this 

work. DOE has undertaken the effort because of the direct relationship between 

emissions reductions and reduced fuel efficiency. We urge Congress to reinstate 

funding for this subprogram at $2.0 million in fiscal year 2004. 

21st Century Truck Partnership.—The 21st Century Truck Partnership was created to provide a systems-wide approach to addressing our national transportation 

priorities. This collaborative effort includes 16 companies and the Departments of 

Energy, Defense and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency. The 

partnership embraces 214 projects with annual federal funding approaching $120 

million. Operating within the 21st Century Partnership, industry and government 

will develop critical R&D synergies and establish technology priorities to avoid funding duplication and redundancies. Caterpillar supports this unique R&D collaborative effort and commends the Department of Energy for its leadership.Mr. Chairman, Caterpillar believes that the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program 

effectively addresses real-world technology challenges through the leveraging of public and private sector resources. Achieving the goals set forth in these programs is 

critically important to meeting our nation’s energy and environmental imperatives 

while maintaining the competitiveness of our transportation sector. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE SECTOR

COALITION FOR OPERATION CLEAN AIR (OCA) 

On behalf of the California Government and Private Sector Coalition for Operation Clean Air’s (OCA) Sustainable Incentive Program, we are pleased to submit 

this statement for the record in support of our fiscal year 2004 funding request of 

$7,000,000 for OCA as part of a Federal match for the $180 million already contributed by California State and local agencies and the private sector for incentive programs. This request consists of $5,000,000 from the Department of Energy (DOE) 

for bio mass incentives, and $2,000,000 from DOE for alternative fuels infrastructure funding. 

California’s great San Joaquin Valley is in crisis. Home to 3.3 million people, its 

25,000 square miles may have the most unhealthy air in the Country. Even Los Angeles, long known as the smog capital of the nation; can boast better air quality by 

certain standards. While peak concentrations of air pollutants are still greater in 

Los Angeles; for the past four years, the San Joaquin Valley has exceeded Los Angeles in violations of the eight-hour federal health standard. 

A combination of geography, topography, meteorology, extreme population growth, 

urban sprawl and a NAFTA corridor with two major highways that produce 5 million big-rig miles per day driven by diesel powered trucks, have collided to produce 

an air basin which over 300,000 people, nearly 10 percent of the population, suffers 

from chronic breathing disorders. In Fresno County, at the heart of the San Joaquin 

Valley, more than 16 percent of all children suffer from asthma, a rate substantially 

higher than any other place in California. The extreme summertime heat works to 

create smog even though smog-forming gases are less than half the amount in the 

Los Angeles basin. There is no prevailing wind to flush the natural geologic bathtub 

and, as a result, pollutants and particulates stagnate, accumulate and create 

unhealthy air. 

Degradation of human health is not the only consequence of poor quality air. Because the eight county air pollution control district is designated as a ‘‘severe’’ nonattainment area, a significant number of the Valley’s businesses are required to obtain permits and comply with increasingly burdensome regulations imposed by federal and state law and the Air Pollution Control District, resulting in added cost 

in compliance, reporting and record keeping. At the same time, the area is burdened 

by unemployment rates of nearly 20 percent. Encouraging business expansion in or 

relocation to the San Joaquin Valley to combat unemployment is extremely difficult 

in the face of such regulatory burdens. 

In the fall of 2003 the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Board 

will decide whether to become the first District in the nation voluntarily to declare 

itself an ‘‘extreme’’ non-attainment area. That designation, if made, will defer until 

2010 the date for attainment of federal standards of air quality, but will come at 
417

a cost of imposing permitting on thousands of more businesses and even further discouraging business expansion or relocation. Unemployment will certainly not be improved. 

The San Joaquin Valley is home to the most productive agricultural land in the 

world. Over 350 crops are produced commercially on 27,000 farms that encompass 

more than 5 million irrigated acres. While the agricultural industry has made great 

strides at considerable expense to replace old diesel engines and manage fugitive 

dust and other emissions, farming cannot help but contribute to the problem. However, it is a $14 billion industry that forms the backbone of the Valley’s economy. 

Industry alone is not the source of the Valley’s poor air. Population growth faster 

than the rest of the state and nearly the rest of the nation, in an area without effective mass transit, where cheap land has led to a landscape of suburbia and sprawl, 

results in excessive over-reliance on the automobile. Trucking has increased dramatically with the increase in population. Other factors such as fireplace burning 

in the winter, open field agricultural burning because of lack of adequate alternatives, and wild fires resulting from lack of controlled burning in the nearby foothills and mountains all contribute to the problem. 

Despite the challenges listed above, much progress has been made. The State has 

spent nearly $80 million on improvement and compliance programs. Local government and private industry have spent over $100 million on technology and compliance. As specific examples, over one half of the diesel operated irrigation pumps 

used by agriculture have been replaced with cleaner engines. The City of Tulare has 

converted its entire fleet of vehicles to natural gas as have several other private 

fleet operators. A $45 million federally financed comprehensive study of ozone and 

particulate matter is nearing completion. As a result, the number of one-hour EPA 

health standard exceedences has been reduced by 40 percent since 1989. 

But much more needs to be done. The District estimates that daily emissions 

must be reduced by 300 tons to achieve attainment. There is no single or short-term 

quick fix. The entire Valley is part of the problem and the entire Valley will need 

to be part of the solution. 

Operation Clean Air is a coalition of business, government, health care and environmental groups throughout the eight county San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District and Mariposa County. Its goal is to clean the Valley’s air and increase its economic prosperity. The coalition seeks to catalogue efforts that have produced positive effects and identify those strategies that could produce even greater 

effects if supported by sufficient resources. At the heart of its efforts will be an 

array of sustainable, voluntary practices and activities that can and will be undertaken by all of the residents of the San Joaquin Valley, both public and private, to 

improve air quality. 

This unique public-private partnership has invested considerable resources in this 

project to date, and will continue to do so, but federal funding is both imperative 

and justified to help address what is essentially an unfounded federal mandate. 

For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is seeking funding of $2,000,000 from the Department of Energy (DOE) for the installation and operation of alternative fuels infrastructure throughout the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. The alternative fuels infrastructure will allow for the accelerated introduction of alternatively fueled vehicles in municipal fleets, public school fleets, and private fleets. The widespread use 

of lower-emitting motor vehicles will provide significant improvement to air quality 

in the San Joaquin Valley while furthering the goals of the Department of Energy 

and the National Energy Policy Act. Development of alternative fuel infrastructure 

will augment the low-emission vehicle program by providing much needed compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (CNG) fueling facilities. 

For fiscal year 2004, our Coalition is also seeking funding of $5,000,000 to provide 

financial incentives to reduce open field burning of residual agricultural materials 

by utilizing biomass-energy power plants to burn this material in a controlled environment. This process will result in multiple benefits to the San Joaquin Valley by 

reducing air pollution and producing electrical power from a renewable source. 

Thank you very much your consideration of our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CENTER FOR ADVANCED SEPARATION TECHNOLOGIES

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I represent the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST), which is a consortium of seven leading 

mining schools in the United States. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony requesting your committee to add $4 million to the 2004 Fossil Energy Research and Development budget, U.S. Department of Energy, for Advanced Separa-
418

tions research. The research in advanced separation is an integral part of the Solid 

Fuels and Feedstocks Program of the Fossil Energy R&D. 

I am joined in this statement by my colleagues from the consortium: Richard J. 

Sweigard (University of Kentucky), Peter H. Knudsen (Montana Tech), Maurice C. 

Fuerstenau (University of Nevada-Reno), Ibrahim H. Gundiler (New Mexico Tech), 

Jan D. Miller (University of Utah) and Richard A. Bajura (West Virginia University). 

The U.S. mining industry produces approximately 40 percent of all solid wastes 

generated in the country. The generation of excessive waste can lead to the loss of 

valuable natural resources, environmental damage, and higher cost in raw materials 

production—including the coal that is used to generate 52 percent of the nation’s 

electricity. A large part of the waste generated by the mining industry can be attributed to the inefficiencies of the various separation processes that are currently being 

used. Therefore, there is a need to develop advanced separation technologies that 

can be used by the U.S. mining industry. The Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST) has been established to meet this need. 

BACKGROUND

In 2001, the U.S. mining industry produced a total of $58 billion of raw materials, which consisted of $39 billion from minerals and $19 billion from coal. The mineral 

processing industries increased the value of the minerals to $374 billion, while coal 

and uranium were used to produce 72 percent of the nation’s electricity, whose dollar value was $194 billion. Thus, the U.S. mining industry contributed a total of 

$568 billion to the nation’s economy, which accounted for 5.6 percent of its GDP. 

According to the 2002 Mineral Commodity Summary, major industries further increased the value of the processed mineral materials to $1,720 billion, which accounted for 17 percent of the GDP. 

Despite the important contributions that the U.S. mining industry is making to 

the nation’s economy, the country has not been investing in technology development. 

This is particularly the case with the coal and minerals processing technologies, 

which are mostly concerned with separating one mineral (or coal) from another. In 

the absence of advanced separation technologies, companies resort to increasing 

throughput rather than improving separation efficiencies, which in turn causes increased waste generation. This approach may give higher rates of return on these 

companies’ investments in the short term, but it entails a higher loss of valuable 

natural resources and greater environmental damages. Fine coal waste impoundments are a notable example. According to a recent NRC report, the U.S. coal industry is discarding 70 to 90 million tons of fine coal annually to 713 impoundments, 

mostly in the Appalachian coal field. 

To address the need for the advanced separation technologies that can be used 

by the U.S. mining industry, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) 

issued a solicitation (DE–PS26–00FT40756) in 1999 for the creation of a knowledge 

base for solid-solid and solid-liquid separation technologies. Virginia Tech and West 

Virginia University jointly responded to this solicitation and proposed to establish 

the Center for Advanced Separation Technologies (CAST). The objective of the alliance was to conduct long-term, high-risk research, primarily for the U.S. coal industry. 

In 2002, NETL issued a second solicitation (DE–PS26–02NT41422–9) requesting 

proposals for developing crosscutting advanced separation technologies for both the 

U.S. coal and minerals industries. CAST responded to this solicitation as a consortium of seven universities: Montana Tech of the University of Montana, New Mexico 

Institute of Mining and Technology, University of Nevada-Reno, University of Utah, 

University of Kentucky, West Virginia University, and Virginia Tech. The proposed 

work addressed a broad spectrum of technological needs of the mining companies 

operating in different geographical locations of the United States. The proposal was 

selected for $8.8 million of funding for three years, which included $1.8 million for 

the first year, $3 million for the second year, and $4 million for the third year. This 

testimony is to present a progress report and a rationale for requesting the third 

year funding. 

PROGRESS TO DATE

During August 14–15, 2002, CAST organized a workshop in Charleston, West Virginia, to identify the technological needs of the U.S. mining industry. A large number of industry leaders participated and developed a 63-page roadmap for research. 

The document has recently been printed and distributed throughout the U.S. mining 

industry and is available at the CAST website (www.castconsort.org). Faculty members from the participating universities developed research proposals, which were 
419

reviewed by industry representatives in accordance with the priorities outlined in 

the roadmap, and the U.S. Department of Energy made the final selection in light 

of its policies and national needs. 

Solid-liquid separation (dewatering) was one of the research topics that were 

given the highest priority in the roadmap, which may be a reflection of the fact that 

many coal companies continue to discard ultrafine coal to impoundments mainly due 

to the difficulty in dewatering. CAST is currently developing several different fine 

coal dewatering processes, including the development of novel dewatering aids 

(chemicals), a hyperbaric centrifugal filter (HBF), and a hyperbaric horizontal belt 

filter (HBF). Several dewatering aids have been tested successfully in a small pilotscale continuous operation. Tests conducted on fine coal recovered from a large impoundment in southern West Virginia showed that the use of novel dewatering aids 

can more than double the throughput of vacuum filtration, reduce the moisture content substantially, and improve the handleability of the processed coal. Based on 

these successful test results, Beard Technologies, Inc. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 

is planning to construct a 200-ton per hour recovery plant. The HCF and HBF are 

designed to create an optimum pressure drop across a filter cake and thereby 

achieve higher filtration rates and low cake moistures. 

In general, solid-solid and solid-liquid separation processes become more efficient 

with narrowly sized feeds. Separation becomes particularly difficult with feeds containing large amounts of ultrafine particles (or slimes). In this regard, the industry 

representatives who participated in the 2002 CAST workshop stressed the need to 

develop efficient methods of desliming coal. Two CAST member universities are 

jointly working on the project. It has also been shown that enhanced-gravity separators work substantially better when the feed coal is deslimed. 

In 2002, CAST took a major step forward by expanding the scope of its research 

beyond coal. The justification for this shift was that many of the unit operations 

used in the coal and mineral processing industries are common. Thus, a research 

investment in the improvement of a crosscutting technology such as flotation would 

be cost efficient. Furthermore, the cost of implementing the results of a crosscutting 

technology development is lower due to the larger customer base. 

The modern form of flotation technology was introduced to the mining industry 

nearly one hundred years ago. Yet, it was only recently that comprehensive flotation 

models were developed from first principles, which has made it possible to predict 

flotation performance on the basis of a broad spectrum of process parameters. CAST 

is further developing the models so that they can be used to predict flotation rates 

under more realistic conditions. Based on preliminary model predictions, a set of 

new flotation reagents has been developed, some of which are being used commercially for coal flotation in the United States and Australia. 

Beginning in 2002, CAST started research in the area of minerals processing as 

part of its mission to develop crosscutting technologies. An alternative to copper 

smelting has been sought for years for cost and environmental reasons. However, 

chalcopyrite is notoriously difficult to dissolve in acidic media due to the formation 

of an impermeable sulfur layer forming on the mineral surface. This problem has 

been overcome by adding finely divided solids that can support photo-catalytic reactions. CAST is also developing methods of optimizing heap leaching processes by 

conducting 3–D mineral exposure analysis, and of improving the separation of phosphate, potash, kaolin clay and trona in efficient and environmentally acceptable 

manner. 

PROPOSAL

The research activities will follow the CAST Technology Roadmap, which identifies three generic research areas: (i) physical separation, (ii) chemical/biological separation, and (iii) environmental control. In physical separation, issues concerning 

size-size, solid-solid, and solid-liquid separations will be addressed. High priority research topics in these areas of research will include the development of efficient 

desliming methods, dewatering fine coal, extending the upper and lower particle size 

limits of flotation, and the densification of waste materials. In chemical/biological 

separation, methods of leaching refractory base metal sulfide ores will be developed. 

The photocatalytic technique that is currently under development can be an alternative method to the energy-intensive smelting process and can minimize pollution. 

Chemical and biological separation methods will be developed to process low-grade 

ores and to remove both organic and inorganic sulfur from coal. In environmental 

control, advanced methods for separating various contaminants from wastewater 

streams and soils will be developed. In general, the advanced separation technologies to be developed in the three generic areas of research identified above will 

be useful for increasing the efficiency of coal and mineral processing operations, 
420

1The CURC is an ad-hoc group of electric utilities, coal producers, equipment suppliers, state 

government agencies, and universities. CURC members work together to promote coal utilization research and development and to commercialize new coal technologies. Our 40∂ members 

share a common vision of the strategic importance for this country’s continued utilization of coal 

in a cost-effective and environmentally acceptable manner. 

which will result in the minimization of the wastes generated by the U.S. mining 

industry. 

To promote industrial participation, CAST will initiate the Cooperative Research 

Program, in which groups of companies will jointly fund projects of common interest 

to solve specific industrial problems using the wide-spectrum of expertise available 

at the Center. This program will serve as a vehicle for generating substantial costsharing funds. 

RATIONALE

The U.S. mining industry is facing a difficult time due to high operating costs, 

stringent environmental regulations and a worldwide economic downturn. To cope 

with this situation, many companies are trying to survive by increasing their production capacity without due consideration of improving efficiency, which in turn 

causes greater waste generation and loss of valuable natural resources. It is, therefore, necessary to develop advanced separation technologies that can be used to increase recovery rates and hence minimize waste generation. 

The United States is by far the largest mining country of the world with $58 billion of raw materials produced in 2001. Australia is the distant second, with $17.5 

billion in 2000. Yet, Australia has established a total of five centers of excellence 

in the area of minerals and coal processing research. In the United States, CAST 

is the only such center. The center is poised for success, as it is a consortium of 

seven universities with diverse expertise and its research activities are carried out 

in close consultation with a broad spectrum of U.S. mining companies. 

REQUEST

Thanks to the support of your Committee, the proposal submitted by CAST to 

DOE has been selected for funding for three years. It is sincerely hoped that this 

testimony provides justification for requesting $4 million for the third year funding. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COAL UTILIZATION RESEARCH COUNCIL (CURC) 

SYNOPSIS OF CURC 1 TESTIMONY

Our testimony focuses upon the following three topics: 

1. The DOE-CURC-EPRI Clean Coal Technology Roadmap; 

2. A recommendation to increase funding for programs in the President’s Clean 

Coal Research Initiative in the DOE Fossil Energy Budget to $347.65 million, which 

represents a $60.0 million increase over the Administration’s requested $287.65 million for those programs in fiscal year 2004; and 

3. The Department of Energy’s FutureGen Initiative. 

THE CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY ROADMAP

In collaboration with the fossil fuel experts at the Department of Energy (DOE), 

as well as the professional staff of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the 

CURC has drafted a clean coal technology roadmap. A copy of the technology roadmap is available upon request and can also be obtained on the CURC website at 

www.coal.org. 

The roadmap seeks to identify the critical technologies that must be successfully 

developed, as well as the timelines for when that development must take place, if 

the Nation is to have highly efficient (near 55 to 60 percent conversion to useful 

energy) coal energy production facilities available for commercial deployment by 

2020. These same technologies will be capable of near zero emissions to the air or 

water and will be able to provide low cost, competitive electricity or other useful 

products to end use consumers. In addition, the roadmap seeks to define a technology development program for carbon management; that is, the prevention or capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. In the event public policies are determined 

necessary for the capture/sequestration of CO2 at some future time, then it is important that we have technologies designed to safely and effectively address this matter. 
421

It is our intent to evaluate this and future year budget requests, to score the 

progress and direction of technology development conducted by the Department of 

Energy, and to advise the current and future Administrations as well as the Congress about coal-based technology issues by using the technology roadmap as a principal reference. We have utilized the roadmap as a ‘‘tool’’ by which to judge budget 

priorities for fiscal year 2004 and the progress or success of R&D endeavors. Further, and more importantly, we hope that the roadmap will become a ‘‘tool’’ to enable the Congress to ask whether certain research and development programs are 

necessary or whether funding should be augmented or terminated for those programs. The members of CURC are ready to assist the Congress in understanding 

the elements of the roadmap and how the document might be used to oversee the 

coal technology R&D programs of the DOE and others.

SPECIFIC FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COAL R&D PROGRAM 

[In millions of dollars] 

Technology program 

Administration 

fiscal year

2004 request 

CURC

roadmap

annual

R&D budget 1

CURC

fiscal year

2004 proposed

budget 

Clean Coal Power Initiative ....................................................................... 130.00 240.00 150.00 

IGCC/Gasification ....................................................................................... 51.00 106.00 62.00 

Pressurized fluidized bed (PFB) ................................................................. ........................ 14.00 12.00 

Innovations for Existing Plants ................................................................. 22.00 43.00 32.00 

Advanced turbines ..................................................................................... 2 13.00 2 15.00 23.00 

Carbon Sequestration ................................................................................ 62.00 84.00 52.00 

Advanced research—Ultrasupercitical Materials Consortium .................. 4.65 4.00 4.65 

Coal derived fuels & liquids ..................................................................... 2 5.00 2 13.00 12.00

Total .............................................................................................. 287.65 519.00 347.65 

1 This number is 80 percent of the total R&D amount required and represents the federal contribution. It is assumed that industry would provide the other 20 percent required to carry out the R&D. The annual budgets are based upon the CURC Roadmap through fiscal year 2010; the annual budgets from 2011–2020 are not reflected. 2 Not specified for coal syngas R&D. 

Clean Coal Power Initiative.—CURC recommends that fiscal year 2004 CCPI 

funding be appropriated at the fiscal year 2003 level ($150 million) so that there 

will be sufficient funds for multiple, large-scale demonstration projects to be selected 

in the next program solicitation. In addition, because of the CCPI program’s critical 

importance as well as the need to provide assurances to industry that the program 

will continue to be adequately funded, CURC recommends that the CCPI program 

be fully funded through advance appropriations. 

IGCC/Gasification.—The requested increase in funding from $44.7 million in fiscal year 2003 to $51.0 million in fiscal year 2004 is insufficient to keep the development of promising IGCC systems on track and further funding is requested. Specifically, CURC supports the recommended budget levels for the H2/CO separation and 

other gas cleanup at $8 million and the gasification slipstream units at $9 million. 

CURC recommends that an additional $3 million in funding be allocated to ceramic 

membrane and oxygen separation activities, for a total of $12 million, and recommends an additional $8 million be appropriated to fund hydrogen storage and 

materials management research. CURC also supports funding for the PSDF operation at $21 million, but notes that this funding will simply maintain the program 

in its current state. 

There are a variety of other R&D activities to further IGCC technology that 

should be funded. These include: the application of IGCC systems on sub-bituminous and low-rank coals, coal-derived hydrogen, oxygen-blown transport gasifier, 

air separation membranes, advanced synthesis gas cleanup, solid oxide fuel cell element, combustion turbine burners, synthesis gas coolers, improved fuel feed systems, and high-temperature heat exchangers, and a number of other activities. (The 

CURC supports activities in these areas, although no specific funding levels are recommended.) 

Pressurized Fluidized Bed (PFB) Systems.—CURC recommends that DOE restore 

in fiscal year 2004 funding for coal combustion-based R&D at $12.0 million. Further, 

this program should be renamed ‘‘Advanced Combustion Systems’’ and focus on development of high efficiency, superior environmental performance, and CO2 sequestration technologies. The CURC recommends that the advanced combustion program 

should focus on the following areas: advanced combustion technologies able to capture and sequester CO2, including high efficiency oxygen combustion systems and 
422

chemical looping systems; hybrid power plant systems; ultra-supercritical steam cycles; and, continued funding for the Combustion Technologies University Alliance. 

Advanced Turbines.—The recommended increase in funding is specifically directed 

to research in high efficiency gas turbines configured for use of synthesis gas derived from coal. The increased funding will accelerate the development of critical 

component technologies that will allow advanced gas turbines (i.e., G and ATS (H) 

class gas turbines just now entering the market operating on natural gas) to operate 

in coal-based IGCC plants. Specifically, additional focus and R&D funding is needed 

in the following areas: syngas tolerant advanced gas turbine materials and coating 

systems; sensors and monitors for syngas applications; and ultra-low emission combustion systems for fuel flexible gas turbines. 

Innovations For Existing Plants.—CURC recommends an increase of $10 million 

in the fine particulate/air toxics budget in order to increase the number of full-scale 

field tests from 3 to 4 tests to 10, to allow tests with lignite, sub-bituminous, and 

low-Cl and high-Cl bituminous coals at various configurations. Additional funding 

also should be made available for the superclean systems budget to fully fund the 

solicitation due in the fall of 2003 to develop improved technology and materials for 

meeting increasingly stringent NOX requirements, or in the ‘‘waste and water management’’ budget to address pressing clean water regulatory issues. 

Carbon Sequestration.—CURC recommends that the carbon sequestration program reduce its funding for the National Climate Change Technology Initiative 

(NCCTI) program by $10 million (the current Request is $13 million) in order to allocate funds to other coal-related programs in the Fossil Energy Budget. Funds for 

the NCCTI program should be considered of secondary importance to the immediate 

need to develop carbon separation and sequestration technologies that will be required to support the FutureGen Project. CURC recommends that the funds provided for carbon sequestration should focus on near-term proof of concept projects 

and provide out-year funding for demonstration of CO2 separation and sequestration 

technologies. 

Advanced Research—Ultra-Supercritical Materials Consortium.—CURC believes 

that the ultra-supercritical materials consortium should be funded at the level recommended in the fiscal year 2004 Budget request. The program, based on successful 

results will provide the materials and processing technologies to increase steam conditions, enabling attainment of higher generation efficiencies. 

Coal Derived Fuels And Liquids.—CURC recommends that funding for hydrogen 

fuel derived from coal is an activity more appropriately placed in the IGCC program. 

CURC recommends that funding for Coal Derived Fuels and Liquids be allocated 

at $12 million in total funding, with $8 million in funding for Transportation Fuels 

and Chemicals. Of the $8 million, $3 million should be allocated to complete present 

commitments to the Early Entrance Co-Production program, $1 million for advanced 

computational modeling work focused on polygeneration system designs (power, liquids, hydrogen, co-generation), and $4 million for work on reactor design, catalyst 

development, scale-up, and engineering and development. In addition, CURC recommends retaining an Advanced Fuels Research Program at $4 million in total 

funding, with $2 million focused on military applications of coal-based fuels to meet 

requirements for logistic fuels. 

THE PROPOSED FUTUREGEN PROJECT

In late February, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced that the 

United States will lead a $1.0 billion public-private effort to construct the world’s 

first pollution-free, fossil fuel power plant. The prototype power production facility, 

according to Secretary Abraham, will serve as a research platform to develop new 

technologies for electricity and hydrogen production, and for carbon capture and sequestration. 

First, the CURC supports this very important research project capable of testing 

and integrating a variety of cutting edge technologies. 

Second, FutureGen is estimated to cost at least $1.0 billion. Because it will be a 

research program, it is important to acknowledge that the government will be contributing at least 80 percent of the total funding required for the project. 

Third, the ten-year FutureGen project will require, at least, $800 million in federal contributions. These funds must be made available from new funds and not acquired by stripping funding from other coal technology development programs. Specifically, the CURC would strongly oppose any plans to acquire funding by reducing 

announced funding for the President’s Clean Coal Power Initiative. Further, funds 

should not be obtained simply by reducing or eliminating other important, on-going 

coal R&D and demonstration programs. These on-going programs are also instrumental in the development of clean coal technologies that have yet to be proven at 
423

commercial scale and will not be demonstrated in the FutureGen project. Examples 

of ongoing programs include innovations for existing plants, advanced combustion 

technologies, and carbon management programs. 

CONCLUSION

The DOE-CURC-EPRI roadmap describes a variety of advanced coal-based energy 

systems that, if fully developed, will ensure cost-effective, efficient and environmentally acceptable uses of coal, as well as the timeframes for development of those 

technologies and the performance requirements of these systems. However, if critical components of a particular system are not developed in a timely manner, a 

promising technology may not materialize in the recommended timeframe. Importantly, to achieve timely technology development, the government’s long-term commitment must be assured and funding of programs must be substantial. Technology 

is the key to assuring the long-term use of coal, and the Department of Energy’s 

coal RD&D programs are vital to that technology development. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COALITION OF NORTHEASTERN GOVERNORS

The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to provide this testimony to the Senate Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies regarding fiscal 

year 2004 appropriations for the Energy Conservation programs of the U.S. Department of Energy. The Governors appreciate the Subcommittee’s support for these 

programs, and recognize the difficult funding decisions which confront the Subcommittee this year. At a time of heightened attention to the security, reliability 

and efficiency of the nation’s energy systems, we believe that modest federal investment in these programs provides substantial energy, economic and environmental 

returns to the nation. In recognition of the contribution which energy efficiency and 

conservation programs make to cost-effective energy strategies, the CONEG Governors request that funding for the State Energy Program be increased to $74 million, and that funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program be increased to 

$288 million in fiscal year 2004. The Governors also request that funding for the 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve be maintained at $6 million in fiscal year 

2004. 

The Department of Energy’s State Energy Program and Weatherization Assistance Program provide valuable opportunities for the states, industry, national laboratories and the U.S. Department of Energy to collaborate in moving energy efficiency and renewable energy research, technologies, practices and information to the 

public and into the marketplace. Administered by the 50 states, District of Columbia 

and territories, these programs are an efficient way to achieve national energy 

goals, as they tailor energy projects to specific community needs, economic and climate conditions. 

State Energy Assistance Program.—The State Energy Program (SEP) is the major 

state-federal partnership program for energy. While it represents only a small portion of overall funding for state energy activities, it is a critical nucleus for many 

states. As the nation moves to enhance the security of its energy infrastructure, the 

energy emergency preparedness activities long provided by state energy offices take 

on heightened significance. Increased SEP funding in fiscal year 2004 will ensure 

that States can continue to rely upon state energy offices to serve as their essential 

energy emergency preparedness officials in providing this vital public security and 

safety function. As part of the nation’s strategy for a balanced, reliable energy system, SEP also helps move energy efficiency and renewable energy technology into 

the marketplace. Through the SEP, states also assist schools, municipalities, businesses, residential customers and others in both the private and public sectors to 

incorporate the practices and technologies which help them manage their energy use 

wisely. 

The modest federal funds provided to the SEP are an efficient federal investment, 

as they are leveraged by non-federal public and private sources. According to a 

study of the SEP done by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory at the request of U.S. 

Department of Energy, every dollar in SEP funding yields $3.54 in ‘‘leveraged’’ funding from the state and private sectors, and results in $7.23 in annual energy cost 

savings. This adds up to over $256 million in annual energy costs savings. These 

savings estimates do not capture the valuable public benefits, such as energy emergency planning and preparedness, provided by SEP. In short, the Oak Ridge report 

concludes that the SEP, with its impressive savings and emissions reductions, ratios 

of savings to funding and payback periods, offers effective operations and a substantial positive impact on the nation’s energy situation. 
424

Weatherization Assistance Program.—The Weatherization Assistance Program 

(WAP) helps low-income households better manage their ongoing energy use, thereby reducing the heating and cooling bills of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. 

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, low-income households spend 14 percent of their annual income on energy, compared to 3.5 percent for other households. 

The Weatherization Assistance Program strives to reduce the energy burden of lowincome residents through such energy saving measures as the installation of insulation and energy-efficient lighting, and heating and cooling system tune-ups. These 

measures can result in energy savings as high as 30 percent. 

Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.—The nation’s heightened emphasis on energy security places renewed importance on the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. The Northeast, with its reliance upon imported fuels for both residential and 

commercial heating, is particularly vulnerable to the effects of supply disruptions 

and price volatility. The Reserve provides an important buffer to ensure that the 

states will have prompt access to immediate supplies in the event of a supply emergency. 

In conclusion, we request that the Subcommittee increase funding for the State Energy Program to $74 million and for the Weatherization Assistance Program to 

$288 million; and that it maintain funding at the level of $6 million for the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve in fiscal year 2004. These programs have demonstrated their effectiveness in contributing to the nation’s goals of environmentally 

sound energy management and improved economic productivity and energy security. 

We thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to share the views of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors, and we stand ready to provide you with any additional information on the importance of these programs to the Northeast. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GASIFICATION TECHNOLOGIES COUNCIL

The Gasification Technologies Council (GTC) submits this statement addressing 

fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) R&D program, the High Efficiency Engines and Turbines R&D program, the Coal Derived Fuels and Liquids R&D program and the Clean Coal Power Initiative. Specific funding recommendations are 

listed below: 

—The IGCC R&D program for fiscal year 2004 should be funded at a $60 million level, up from the $51 million requested. 

—The High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) program for R&D activities 

directed toward enabling advanced gas turbines to operate on gasification-based 

synthesis gas should be funded at a $24.5 million level, instead of the $13 million requested. 

—The Coal Derived Fuels and Liquids Program funding should be $12 million, instead of the $5 million requested. 

—The Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) should be funded at a level of $150 million instead of the $130 million requested. 

—Any funding for the FutureGen program should come from new revenue sources 

and not transfers from any of the above programs. 

ROLE OF GASIFICATION IN DOE STRATEGY, POLICIES & PROGRAMS

Gasification related technologies are key elements in the DOE’s strategy to bring 

extremely clean, highly efficient coal based power generation into the marketplace. 

More advanced and competitive technologies are fundamental to achieving this goal, 

as well as to the successful implementation of Vision 21 and the FutureGen pollution-free power plant. Continuing and robust IGCC R&D, HEET R&D, Coal Derived 

Fuels and Liquids R&D, and CCPI programs, together with tax incentives being 

proposed in the new energy legislation, are necessary to achieve the goal of stateof-the-art, competitive gasification-based technologies. 

Gasification-based power generation, as embodied in an Integrated Gasification 

Combined Cycle (IGCC) power plant configuration, has inherently superior environmental benefits compared to combustion-based power generation: 

—Hydrogen Economy.—Gasification offers the most cost-effective means of producing hydrogen from coal. However, for our vast coal resources to become a 

viable alternative to natural gas as a source of hydrogen, gasification technology 

needs first to be established as a competitive means of generating power from 

coal through continued research, development and demonstration efforts. 

—Carbon Removal & Sequestration.—If CO2 removal from coal-based power generation becomes a regulatory requirement in the future, the impact on the cost 

of electricity will be significant. Because of its inherent characteristics, gasifi-
425

cation based power production will enable the addition of CO2 removal at the 

lowest additional cost and thus support the ability of coal to remain a viable 

feedstock for power production if carbon capture and sequestration are required. 

The average additional capital cost to include CO2 capture in the design of a 

pulverized coal plant is expected to be more than twice the additional capital 

to add that capability to an IGCC plant. Furthermore, the associated decreases 

in capacity and efficiency of the pulverized coal plant are expected to be twice 

that of an IGCC plant. The R&D to confirm and extend IGCC performance in 

this regard is important to the goal of minimizing the impact on coal-based 

power cost, should CO2 capture become a requirement. 

—Mercury Emissions Reductions.—Volatile mercury removal from coal gasification-based synthesis gas is being practiced commercially today. In fact, a recent DOE-funded study concluded that the cost of 90 percent∂ volatile mercury 

removal from a gasification-based plant would be but one-tenth of that from a 

combustion-based plant of comparable capacity. 

—Efficiency.—IGCC plants already are more efficient than combustion based 

plants because they enable the use of high efficiency gas turbines to generate 

power. Further improvements now being developed in the DOE IGCC R&D program focusing on discrete components of the IGCC system, including high efficiency gas turbines and ceramic air separation membranes among others, offer 

a future of additional efficiency improvements. Combustion-based technologies, 

faced with the need to add on energy intensive emissions control systems to 

meet more stringent air regulations, will likely see reduced efficiencies and generate additional solid wastes. 

—Criteria Pollutants.—IGCC reduces criteria pollutant emissions (SOX, NOX, CO 

and particulates) from coal-based power generation to levels that cannot be 

achieved by combustion-based technologies at comparable capital and operating 

costs, and comparable efficiency levels. An IGCC also generates far lower levels 

of solid wastes. DOE sponsored R&D in several key areas promises to widen 

further IGCC’S advantages in emissions reductions. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF ROBUST GASIFICATION R&D PROGRAMS

The inherent technical benefits of gasification noted above cannot be fully realized 

on an accelerated schedule without a solid underpinning of research and development, both in the private sector and in joint public-private sector endeavors as embodied in the current DOE IGCC program in combination with a continuation of the 

CCPI. 

The managers of the DOE IGCC research program have been working closely with 

the gasification industry to define critical technology improvements that will enhance the performance and reduce the cost of IGCC to help stimulate future deployment of the technology. A recent study has shown that if the goals of the DOE fossil 

energy R&D program, including IGCC, are realized, by 2020 the use of IGCC could 

see a ten-fold increase over what otherwise would occur. This would increase coal 

use by ten percent, and reduce pressures on natural gas use for power generation, 

with no increase in criteria pollutants and with a decrease in mercury emissions 

from coal-based power generation. However, this analysis is premised on a successful DOE fossil R&D program, including the IGCC and HEET efforts. 

WHY ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE NEEDED FOR IGCC R&D

Although the 2004 budget request for the IGCC R&D program appears higher 

than for the prior year, a number of combustion-related programs that had been 

partly funded by IGCC are now being entirely funded by the IGCC program area. 

This means that, if current IGCC programs are to be adequately funded, and important new efforts initiated, total appropriations for IGCC R&D should be increased 

from the requested level of $51 million to a minimum of $60 million. 

The DOE IGCC program office has made a concerted effort for the past several 

years to actively seek out industry views on critical gasification R&D requirements. 

The goal of this effort has been to make sure that limited public funds are directed 

toward projects that will be leveraged by private sector funds and that will have 

payoffs in introducing improved technologies into the marketplace. The increased 

funding being recommended will enable these joint public-private R&D efforts to 

continue. 
426

Recommended Fiscal Year 2004 IGCC R&D Appropriation.—$60 million 

WHY ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE NEEDED FOR THE HEET R&D PROGRAM

Today’s most advanced gas turbines, offering increased efficiency (with accompanying lower operating costs and reduced carbon emissions) have not yet been 

proven on combustion of syngas from coal-based IGCC systems. There is a distinct 

need for further R&D to develop advanced turbines for coal-derived syngas utilization and test them in full-scale demonstrations in coal gasification systems. This 

will be necessary in order to achieve the high efficiency levels necessary to meet the 

goal of developing by 2008 a 50 percent efficient coal-based IGCC plant at a cost 

of less than $1,000/kW with near zero emissions. 

Recommended HEET Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation.—$24.5 million 

WHY ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE NEEDED FOR COAL DERIVED FUELS AND LIQUIDS R&D

Co-production of chemicals and fuels should be encouraged through ongoing financial support in the DOE fossil fuels R&D program. 

Coal derived fuels and liquids research are necessary to enable further development of ‘‘polygeneration’’ facilities which have the capability of producing not just 

electricity and steam, but also chemicals and fuels (both hydrogen and liquid fuels) 

as well. Such polygeneration facilities will ultimately improve the overall economics 

of building and operating gasificationbased power generation plants, thereby accelerating their deployment into the marketplace and bringing with them substantial 

environmental and efficiency advances. 

Additionally, although one national long term goal is a hydrogen fueled transportation fleet, it is also necessary to address intermediate term needs to improve performance and emissions characteristics of our current liquid fueled fleet of vehicles 

with coal-derived ‘‘zero-sulfur’’ liquid fuels that are co-produced in conjunction with 

an IGCC plant. 

The goal of diversifying the sources of transportation fuels to include coal-based 

fuels, which complements programs in Vision 21 and FutureGen, is also a consideration in supporting increasing funding for R&D for coal derived transportation fuels. 

Recommended Coal-Derived Liquids and Fuels Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation.—

$12 million 

WHY ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE NEEDED FOR THE CCPI

GTC recommends that appropriations for the Clean Coal Power Initiative be 

maintained at no less than the $150 million of the prior year. This will signal to 

potential industrial investors in the program that the Congress continues to view 

the CCPI as a high priority with long term public policy support. This level of funding over extended years will provide sufficient funds for multiple, large-scale demonstration projects to be selected under the next, and future, program solicitation. 

Any reduction in CCPI funding from previous year levels will limit the number of 

otherwise worthy projects that can be funded and thereby limit the technical 

progress that can be made. 

Recommended CCPI Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriation.—$150 million 

THE IMPORTANCE OF ADEQUATE, BALANCED RESOURCES FOR GASIFICATION

Going forward the DOE is embarked on an ambitious yet realistic program of gasification-based research, development and demonstration to accelerate the commercial introduction of coalbased IGCC power generation that will reduce emissions and 

power costs, while increasing use of the nation’s coal resources. However, this will 

require a balanced program that does not short-change either important R&D needs 

or the CCPI demonstration program. As other new technology demonstration initiatives, such as the FutureGen program, are undertaken they must be adequately 

funded with additional resources and should not rely on transfers from ongoing 

R&D programs or the CCPI program, which are critical to the deployment of the 

technology improvements that will support large scale demonstration and commercialization of IGCC. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL ELECTRIC POWER SYSTEMS

The following testimony is submitted on behalf of General Electric Power Systems 

(GE) for the benefit of the Committee during its consideration of the fiscal year 2004 

budget requests for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Fossil Energy program. 
427

Continued technology advancements are key to realizing the potential for cleaner, 

more efficient power generation. In addition, by improving the U.S. technology base, 

government-private sector programs addressing these challenges will enhance the 

international competitiveness of U.S. industry. Several important DOE programs 

deserve the Committee’s support. 

VISION 21 FUEL CELL/TURBINE HYBRIDS

The fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Vision 21 Hybrids line item within 

the Distributed Generation/Fuel Cells program contains a significant reduction 

below the fiscal year 2003 funding level. GE believes that adequate resources should 

be restored to this program in fiscal year 2004 to support technology development 

to realize cost competitive planar solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)/gas turbine (GT) hybrid electric generation systems in the 1 MW to 10 MW size range. 

Planar SOFC/turbine hybrid systems have the unique potential to meet the nation’s need for clean, high efficiency, cost effective power plants with the ability to 

use multiple fuels. Fuel cell systems offer significant emissions reductions compared 

to conventional, combustion based electrical production. In hybrid systems, efficiencies of 65 percent are achievable, well above the current state of the art. These 

systems also will be able to use fuels of future importance to our nation: hydrogen, 

coal or biomass derived syngas, as well as natural gas. When fully developed, planar 

SOFC/GT hybrid systems in the 1MW to 10 MW size range are projected to be costcompetitive with today’s electricity generation technologies. Systems of this size will 

have important applications in meeting dispersed generation needs to overcome congestion on the bulk power grid. 

Hybrid fuel cell/turbine systems are fully in line with DOE’s views for the powerplant of the future, as seen in both the Department’s Vision 21 goals and its recently announced FutureGen program. DOE has described hybrid power modules as 

a ‘‘key enabling technology’’ for long-term Vision 21 systems. The Department has 

further noted that these modules are an important element of DOE’s carbon management policy. Similarly, DOE’s February 2003 description of the FutureGen initiative anticipates that electricity production in the prototype FutureGen plant will involve turbines, fuel cells or hybrid combinations of these technologies. 

Hybrid planar SOFC/GT technology development for cost effective systems in the 

1 MW to 10MW size range is in its early stages. There are significant technology 

challenges in both the fuel cell and system design. There will also be unique gas 

turbine constraints and challenges to be overcome. Early system design, analysis, 

and modeling are required which will lead to identification of optimum system configurations. Demonstration test programs will then be required to validate component and system design, system integration and manufacturability. 

Additional funding in fiscal year 2004 for planar solid oxide fuel cell/gas turbine 

hybrids will complement and leverage the technology advancements of DOE’s SolidState Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) program. The SECA program, in which 

GE is a participant, focuses on continued SOFC technology development and demonstration to improve performance and reduce costs. The technology development 

being performed under the SECA program forms a solid basis for the hybrid effort. 

However, development of planar SOFC fuel cells for hybrid power systems requires 

additional technology development, such as scale-up and pressurized operation, 

which goes beyond the technical scope of the SECA program. 

Successful development of cost effective planar SOFC/turbine hybrid electrical 

generation systems has significant implications for the United States in terms of reducing fossil fuel consumption, lowering emissions associated with power generation 

and easing of grid constraints. However, with so much uncertainty in the electricity 

industry today, industry alone is not in the position to assume the full burden of 

the technological risks inherent in advancing hybrid fuel cell/gas turbine technologies. The long term time frame for commercial development of this technology 

and the technical challenges to realize the benefits of cost effective commercial systems will require a collaborative effort between the government (DOE) and private 

industry. 

SECA

GE supports full funding for SECA in the Innovative Systems Concepts line item 

of the Distributed Generation/Fuel Cells program. As noted above, GE is a participant in the SECA program. SECA is a broad collaboration among industry, government, universities and other research organizations that has as its ultimate objective the development of fuel cells for a variety of uses, which will lead to the significant cost reductions needed for this technology to be deployed widely. GE appreciates the Congress’s support for the SECA program in the past, and encourages the 
428

Committee to provide sufficient resources again this year to assure that the important work of this program continues. 

HIGH EFFICIENCY ENGINES AND TURBINES

The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 request for the High Efficiency Engines and 

Turbines (HEET) program, within the Central Systems program, should be increased by a total of $11.5 million. This program represents the Department’s primary research effort focusing on gas turbines for electricity production. As DOE has 

explained in its budget submission, ‘‘developing advanced turbines with fuel flexibility is critical as many of the advanced, coal-fired power generation technologies 

currently being developed or demonstrated will incorporate modified gas turbine 

systems.’’ The importance of this technology requires that adequate resources be 

available. 

GE commends to the Committee’s attention the testimony submitted by the Gas 

Turbine Association relative to the funding needs for HEET. In particular, GE encourages the Committee to increase funding for DOE NETL’s Broad Based Financial 

Assistance solicitation (improving overall performance of turbines in integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) applications), to address combustion of hydrogen in 

turbines, to support the University Turbine Systems Research (UTSR) Program, and 

to assure that adequate emphasis is placed on reliability, availability and maintainability (RAM). 

RAM.—The HEET program needs to continue to support improvements in powerplant asset utilization (RAM) through development of advanced technologies for sensors, diagnostics, and condition monitoring. Continued partnering between government and industry will accelerate the pace of this work and speed the introduction 

and widespread deployment of new technology in the field. Economic benefits are 

realized by increasing the operational flexibility of gas turbines to provide more 

power to the electrical grid during periods of peak demand, reducing the costs associated with unplanned turbine outages, increasing the time between scheduled outages, and reducing emissions under both full and partial load conditions. Advances 

in asset utilization technology can be moved into the marketplace quickly and applied to the installed base, including current coal based systems, thus enabling the 

nation to rapidly recognize the benefits of investment in this area. 

HEET Program Accomplishments Will Support IGCC Focus.—GE believes that 

DOE’s continued focus, vision and support for IGCC technology is warranted, and 

we support the fiscal year 2004 funding request for the IGCC program. Recent increases in the price of natural gas once again highlight the need for a robust, fueldiverse energy infrastructure. Our electricity generation sector needs to continue to 

utilize abundant and indigenous fuels such as coal and renewables in order to reduce the stress on both natural gas resources and their distribution. IGCC boasts 

high potential for generating clean power under present and future environmental 

criteria. It has flexibility to process a wide variety of feedstocks—including coal, petroleum coke and biomass. IGCC is also the base from which low-CO2 power can 

grow. 

The HEET program will make important contributions towards realizing the full 

measure of IGCC’s potential. GE, as the industry leader in IGCC gas turbine operation, has made significant investment in the development of fuel-flexible combustors and fuel systems. This has expanded the potential application range of gas turbines that are ready to support the broadening of gasification feedstock flexibility. 

However, to meet the aggressive emission and fuel flexibility goals of the HEET program, new combustion system technologies must be developed. 

Widespread commercial adoption of IGCC has been hampered by its high cost and 

complexity. Superb environmental performance and high efficiency are not, by themselves, sufficient to offset costs in a utility’s technology decision process. GE, therefore, urges that all IGCC programs utilize an overall system perspective to identify 

areas for development that have the highest potential of meeting the challenging 

technical, cost, operability, and availability goals of the HEET program. 

Hydrogen.—Our nation’s increasing focus on hydrogen as a future energy source 

was recently highlighted by the announcement of the President’s hydrogen fuel initiative. While it is anticipated that initial demand for hydrogen will be met by natural gas, serious consideration must be given to the future impact on natural gas 

supplies. Economical sources of hydrogen will be needed to achieve a significant reduction of our reliance on imported oil. With continued escalation of domestic natural gas prices, GE believes that large scale coal-based IGCC could be a significant 

alternative source for hydrogen production. The synthetic gas produced from gasification combined with current process technologies for removal of carbon can provide 
429

a hydrogen-rich feedstock for either combustion in a gas turbine, chemical production, or use elsewhere in the coming ‘‘hydrogen economy.’’

Funding under the HEET program should be provided for the development of gas 

turbine combustion technology for use with a high hydrogen fuel stream. GE has 

experience with gas turbines operating on fuel blends containing hydrogen, and has 

performed laboratory demonstration tests on high hydrogen content fuel. This experience highlighted the need for development of advanced combustion technology in 

order to drive down NOx emissions and enable advanced hydrogen generation processes. In addition, current strategies for effective integration of all major subsystems 

need to be revisited and redefined for use with hydrogen fuel. 

The United States has reached a critical point in time where development and 

demonstration is sorely needed for coal-based hydrogen production processes. DOE’s 

FutureGen program promises to provide a platform to address this need. Technology 

research and development through the HEET program can serve as an important 

source of enabling technology for the FutureGen plant. With regard to the 

FutureGen initiative, GE recommends that the early involvement and participation 

of the providers of technology as key stakeholders be encouraged and sought. 

CLEAN COAL POWER INITIATIVE

GE also supports sustained funding for the Clean Coal Power Initiative. This program should provide a vital opportunity for the demonstration of IGCC technologies 

that hold the key to the environmentally acceptable use of coal for future power generation. The CCPI offers a unique opportunity to demonstrate these technologies on 

a commercial scale—a step that is vital to ultimate commercial acceptance of this 

technology. DOE’s budget submission calls for a ‘‘more focused’’ second round solicitation for the CCPI, and we urge that IGCC be a major part of the focus of the CCPI 

going forward. 

CERAMIC MATRIX COMPOSITES

Finally, GE recommends that funding be provided for Ceramic Matrix Composite 

(CMC) crosscutting technology material development. CMCs offer greater than 

2000F capability when compared to current metal plus coating technology. This increased capability provides potential benefits in power output, efficiency, emissions 

and part life depending on how the material is designed and utilized in product applications. Potential opportunities include both power generation (gas turbines) and 

industrial process heating (radiant burner) markets. CMCs could thus provide an 

enabling technology for all of the programs discussed above, as well as the Distributed Energy Resource Program (Industrial Gas Turbines and Microturbines) and Industry Of The Future (IOF) initiatives within the Energy Conservation budget account. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IBACOS, INC. 

IBACOS (Integrated Building And Construction Solutions) urges the Sub- committee on Interior and Related Agencies to provide $16 million for the Department of Energy (DOE) fiscal year 2004 Residential Buildings Program. 

IBACOS, through the DOE, has significantly improved the efficiency and livability 

of U.S. homes 

IBACOS is a founding partner in the DOE’s Building America Program, which 

consists of five industry consortiums (teams). IBACOS is made up of more than 30 

leading companies from the home building industry, including equipment manufacturers, builders, design firms, and other parties interested in improving the overall 

quality, affordability, and efficiency of our nation’s homes and communities. Although we are located in Pittsburgh, PA, our Network membership is derived from 

across the country. Our associated building product manufacturers and trade associations include: North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA) of 

Washington, DC; Carrier Corporation of Indianapolis, IN; GE Appliances of Louisville, KY; USG Corporation of Chicago, IL; Owens Corning of Toledo, OH; and Andersen Corporation of Bayport, MN. Our builder partners includes such large builders and developers as Pulte Homes of Bloomfield Hills, MI; RGC of Newport Beach, 

CA; Civano Development Partners of Tucson, AZ; Beazer Homes of VA; Washington 

Homes (a division of K. Hovnanian) of VA; and John Laing Homes of Denver, CO. 

Other builders and developers in CA, CO, GA, IN, NC, NJ, NY, NV, SC, and TX 

also participate. 

Through these and other partners, Building America has had direct influence in 

increasing the efficiency of nearly 10,000 homes to date. All of these homes use 30 
430

percent less energy than a code compliant home, and many exceed 50 percent in 

savings. 

We have been working with the DOE’s Residential Building Program since the 

start of the Building America Program in 1993. Along with the four other teams, 

we represent more than 200 residential builders, developers, designers, equipment 

suppliers, and community planners. All Building America partners have a common 

interest in improving the energy efficiency and livability of America’s housing stock, 

while minimizing any increase in home costs. Many of the products used actually 

result in a lower cost, while others experience only marginal increases in first cost 

and absolute reductions in cash flow. In pursuit of this common interest, the five 

Building America teams pursue common activities that will ultimately assist all 

homebuilders and benefit the nations’ homebuyers. 

Building America teams, such as IBACOS, have the ability to research and develop 

new technologies and processes, as well as demonstrate and diffuse information 

throughout the building community 

We are working to significantly expand the active team membership of Building 

America, but, perhaps more importantly, we are finding innovative new ways to increase the energy efficiency of the nation’s housing stock, and are encouraging the 

diffusion of information to hundreds of builders through participation in research 

partnerships, national conferences, technical committees and the Internet. In fact, 

in working with Owens Corning, we helped introduce a market based program, System Thinking, in which Owens Corning is applying lessons from Building America 

to more than 100 builders in all regions of the country. Other Building America 

teams have had similar success with national programs such as Environments for 

Living. All of the teams are partnering with the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA)/DOE Energy Star( program. 

The DOE helps develop and implement widespread innovation in the fragmented residential construction industry 

The new residential construction industry accounts for the production of 1.6 million single family homes per year (over $70 billion in revenue) and approximately 

20 percent of total energy use in the United States. 

Despite its size and impact, the industry is exceptionally fragmented. It comprises 

nearly 100,000 builders, many building only a few homes per year, others as many 

as 35,000. A multitude of residential product manufacturers, architects, trades, and 

developers further compound the problem of an industry in which it is very difficult 

to implement widespread technological innovation. Building America acts as an 

aggregator for identifying and pursuing research needs and consolidating relationships between the industry and National Labs. 

Additionally, there has been little incentive for builders to improve on energy efficiency for a number of reasons. First, energy and resource efficiency does not necessarily contribute to the bottom line of the builder; instead, it benefits the homeowner and the nation. Second, because builders cannot directly recoup costs for up 

front investments through energy savings (since they do not own the homes), they 

have little reason to spend more initially. Third, adopting new technologies and 

training staff and trades to properly install new systems and products is costly and 

problem-ridden. Fourth, builders are not good at sharing knowledge between competitors, so the DOE’s role is critical to expanding the practices beyond the first 

builders in. 

For these reasons, we are working to create higher performance, quality homes 

for no incremental costs, along with associated training, management, and technology transfer methodologies. We believe that because of this work, energy and resource efficiency, durability, and affordability will, eventually, be commonplace in 

the home building industry. 

Because the home building industry is made up of so many differing parties, it 

is virtually impossible for them to come together to perform common research without a third party. 

The DOE plays a critical role in bringing this research, development, and deployment agenda to the marketplace. 

Current research activities include: 

—systems integration, technology and process research and development to improve energy efficiency 

—indoor air quality 

—safety, health, and durability of housing 

—thermal distribution efficiency 

—incorporation of passive and active solar techniques 

—techniques that increase builder productivity and product quality 
431

—reduction of material waste at building sites 

—use of recycled and recyclable materials 

—building materials improvements 

—envelope load reduction and durability 

—mechanical systems efficiencies and appropriate sizing 

The DOE’s role in bringing together the right entities and cost sharing common 

research is invaluable in improving our nation’s building stock, while we work to 

reduce up front builder costs. 

Through the DOE, significant energy saving results have been achieved in residential 

construction, and encouraging research results on systems integration have 

helped to increase overall energy efficiency 

Results of the experience gained by the Building America teams has been reflected in both DOE and HUD roadmapping sessions, development of research priorities for National Labs, and cooperation on programs within DOE/BTS. For example, 

the Building America Program is working cooperatively with the Windows program 

at BTS to ensure that advanced window products are incorporated into high efficiency residential housing. The Building America Program is also partnering in the 

Zero Energy Buildings effort. Additionally, collaborative research activities with the 

National Labs, including NREL, ORNL, and LBNL have resulted in the sharing of 

knowledge and resources that bridges the gap between Federal research programs 

and the industry. 

The Residential Buildings Program improves the affordability of homes by reduced energy use, and results in better use of capital and natural resources. The 

scale of impact is exemplified by the 50 percent savings in the average new home 

built today-the equivalent of the energy used by a sports utility vehicle for one year. 

And, the home will have a useful life of 100 years. 

Investing in residential construction technology makes economic and market 

sense. By using improved materials and techniques, the Residential Buildings partners promote wiser use of resources and reduce the amount of waste produced in 

the construction process. Because of the homes’ improved efficiency, emissions from 

electrical power will be reduced, potentially eliminating 1.4 million tons of carbon 

from the atmosphere over the next ten years. The DOE’s residential programs will 

also save consumers more than $500 million each year through reduced energy bills. 

These savings are permanent and significant. 

IBACOS supports efforts across the government to integrate activities in the residential building area. This includes work with the Partnership for Advancing Technologies in Housing (PATH), the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 

the Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 

We at IBACOS are working with PATH communities as a part of Building America. 

One of the PATH communities is in Tucson, AZ. IBACOS, through the Building 

America Program, is working with the developer and builders on a 2,600-home sustainable new town called Civano. Through detailed monitoring, the homes in this 

community are proving to be at least 50 percent more efficient than comparable 

homes. Many of these homes are being heated and cooled for less than $1 a day. 

Other communities in which Building America is serving as a partner with developers, builders, and PATH are Village Green in CA, Summerset at Frick Park in 

PA, and emerging communities in Denver, CO, North Charleston, SC, and in Florida. Communities are now under construction that will yield upwards of 80,000 

units over the next seven years. All of these units will result in savings between 

30 percent and 50 percent of their energy cost and serve to create market momentum, influencing many other local builders. 

Research results on systems integration are exciting and encouraging. One of the 

major hurdles in home building has been the issue of assembling the home on the 

building site in a way that maximizes integration of the various components and 

equipment within the house. Systems integration results in an airtight house in 

which subsystems are used together to optimize the home’s engineering and otherwise increase the overall energy efficiency of the home. 

There have been a number of concrete and encouraging results from research, development and demonstration activities in cooperation with the Federal government. 

In fact, IBACOS, as a part of the Building America Program, has been able to demonstrate to production builders such as Hedgewood Homes in Atlanta, GA that they 

can build homes that save more than 30 percent to 50 percent in energy costs while 

avoiding any increase in initial construction costs. Medallion Homes in Texas markets to first time home builders and offers up to 50 percent reductions in energy; 

they have had excellent market success. The rapid adoption of new technologies 

from the National Labs and the industry to the marketplace requires additional 
432

demonstration opportunities. We are pleased to be working with the DOE towards 

this end. 

Additionally, IBACOS has been participating in road mapping processes for residential buildings. We have partnered with the DOE to ensure that renewable energy technologies are incorporated into Building America research and development 

activities. We feel very strongly that the integration of the systems into a home is 

as important, or even more important, than the individual pieces of equipment that 

are installed. We have proven the ability to work with builders to build single pilot 

homes and support them through early adoption in their production lines. 

We look forward to continuing to work with the DOE to research and develop the 

technology and process necessary to deliver higher performance homes to the U.S. 

market, as well build markets for more efficient equipment and technologies. 

We at IBACOS urge you to provide $16 million for the DOE fiscal year 2004 Residential Buildings Program. Along with the industry cost share in the program of 

at least 100 percent, this program has had and will continue to significantly catalyze improvements in what has traditionally been a very fragmented industry. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR STATE COMMUNITY

SERVICES PROGRAMS

As Executive Director of the National Association for State Community Services 

Programs (NASCSP), I am pleased to submit testimony in support of the President’s 

2004 Budget request of $288.2 million for the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and in support of $74 million for the DOE 

State Energy Programs (SEP). NASCSP is the member organization representing 

the states on issues related to the WAP and the Community Services Block Grant. 

The state offices represented by our organization would like to thank this Committee for its continued support of the WAP and SEP through the years. The $225 

million in WAP funds provided by the Committee in 2003 is expected to result in: 

—An additional 93,750 homes occupied by low-income families will receive energy 

efficiency services, thereby reducing the energy use and associated energy bills; 

and 

—Greenhouse gases and environmental pollutants will be significantly reduced 

due to the decrease in energy use by these newly weatherized homes; and 

—Nearly 16,000 full time, highly skilled, jobs being supported within the service 

delivery network and in related manufacturing and supplier businesses; 

The WAP is the largest residential energy conservation program in the nation and 

serves a vital function in helping low-income families reduce their energy use. Developed as a pilot project in 1975, the WAP was institutionalized in 1979 within 

DOE and is operated in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and on several Native American reservations. The funds are used to improve the energy efficiency of 

low-income dwellings using the most advanced technologies and testing protocols 

available in the housing industry. The energy conservation resulting from the efforts 

helps our country reduce its dependency on foreign oil and decreases the cost of energy for families in need. With lower energy bills, these families can increase their 

usable income and buy other essentials like food, shelter, clothing, medicine, and 

health care. 

The WAP provides an energy audit for each home to identify the most cost-effective measures, which typically include adding insulation, reducing air infiltration, 

servicing the heating and cooling systems, and providing health and safety diagnostic services. For every dollar spent, the WAP returns $1.80 in energy savings 

over the life of the weatherized home, based on the Energy Information Administration’s long-term energy prices outlook. Since the program’s inception, more than 

5,000,000 homes have been weatherized using federal, state, utility and other monies. 

As we all know, these are troubling times facing our nation—war, budget deficits, 

homeland security needs, and a slowed economic recovery. These times create added 

financial burdens for all Americans, but especially for those who live at or below 

the poverty line. Low-income families have always spent a disproportionate share 

of their income for energy needs than their middle-income counterparts. For example, a typical middle class family pays about 3 to 7 percent of their annual income 

for energy costs (heat, lights, air conditioning, appliances and hot water). Low-income families pay nearly the same dollar amount each year for energy but this 

amount represents a significantly higher percentage of their total household income 

(14 to 20 percent). In times of energy shortages and escalating energy costs, the energy burden for these families can reach 25 to 40 percent or more of their available 

income. 
433

When energy costs rise, like they have during the 2002–03 heating season, even 

a nominal increase can have a dramatic negative impact on low-income families. 

The expected increase in this year’s energy costs may amount to an additional $200 

for most families. For middle-income families, this increase will amount to less than 

one quarter of one percent of the total household income. For many low-income families; however, a $200 increase will result in a 3 to 5 percent increase and will require families to go without other important essentials like food, medicine, or clothing to meet this higher financial demand. 

These families need long-term solutions to help them reduce their energy use both 

now and in the future—resulting in lower energy bills. That is the primary mission 

of the Weatherization Assistance Program—‘‘To reduce heating and cooling costs for 

low-income families, particularly for the elderly, people with disabilities, and children, by improving the energy efficiency of their homes while ensuring their health 

and safety.’’

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory report entitled State Level Evaluations of the 

Weatherization Program in 1990–1996: A Meta-evaluation That Estimates National 

Savings found that the WAP significantly improved its energy savings results during those years. In 1996, the Program showed savings of 33.5 percent of gas used 

for space heating—up from 18.3 percent savings in 1989. The increase in savings 

was based in large part on the introduction and use of more sophisticated diagnostic 

tools and audits. Families receiving weatherization services can reduce their heating 

energy use by an average of 22 percent, making the cost for heating their homes 

more affordable. The Evaluation report also concluded that the WAP possessed a favorable cost-benefit ratio of 2.40 to 1.0. Simply stated, the federal funds provided 

to support the Program have a 140 percent return on investment, or nearly $2.50 

in benefits for every dollar invested. By reducing overall energy use, families can 

realize average savings of $250 or more each year, thereby helping families move 

closer to economic self-sufficiency. 

In addition to direct energy savings from the work performed in the Program, the 

WAP also returns non-energy benefits. In a recent report published by Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory entitled Non Energy Benefits from the Weatherization Assistance Program: A Summary of Findings from the Recent Literature, it was reported 

that the WAP creates quantifiable benefits in several categories including: increased 

property value, reduced incidence of fire, reduced arrearages, federal taxes generated from employment, income generated from indirect employment, avoided costs 

of unemployment benefits, environmental externalities. Taken together, for every $1 

invested in the program, Weatherization returns $3.66 in energy and non-energy 

impacts. 

The WAP has always served as a testing ground and provides a fertile field for 

the deployment of research conducted by national laboratories. For example, the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory developed the National Energy Audit (NEAT) for 

use by local agencies in assessing cost effectiveness of service delivery. Oak Ridge 

is currently investigating the cost effectiveness of including certain base load measures (water heater replacement, lighting, motor efficiency) into the Program and 

continues to test other protocols and material installation techniques to help state 

and local agencies improve their field operations. The Florida Solar Energy Center 

and the state of Hawaii are working on the development of cost effective solar hot 

water heaters. The State of New York, working in concert with the local utility companies and the State Energy Research Development Authority, has implemented a 

refrigerator replacement program to test the impact of providing base-load services 

to conserve energy and reduce costs. 

One of the major outcomes of WAP field deployment is that the private sector 

eventually adopts these technologies. This pattern has been established through several advancements including blower door-directed air infiltration, duct system testing and sealing, furnace efficiency standards, and insulation and ventilation protocols. The acceptance of these standards and protocols by the private sector is enormously important as builders attempt to construct new properties or rehabilitate existing ones using a renewed energy efficiency philosophy. 

Of equal importance to the technological and programmatic foundation are the 

WAP contributions in achieving overall national energy policies and social strategies. Some examples of how the Program helps achieve these goals include: 

—Reducing harmful green house gas through reduced CO2 emissions by avoiding 

energy production. Each time a house is weatherized, the reduction in energy 

needs reduces the environmental impact associated with creating that energy 

reduction of sulfur dioxide, carbon, and other pollutants spilled into the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels like oil, coal, kerosene, wood, gas, and propane. 
434

—Increasing jobs in communities throughout the country. For every $1 million invested in the WAP, more than 51 full time jobs are created and supported in 

the states. Another 20 jobs are created in companies who provide goods and 

services to the Program. With the $288.2 million requested in the President’s 

budget, nearly 20,000 full-time, above minimum wage jobs are created and supported in local communities and in related service and material industries. 

—Investing money into communities through job creation, local purchasing of 

goods and services, and tax revenues. These investments result in many secondary benefits. These residual benefits, known as ‘‘economic benefit multipliers,’’ are applied to local community investment to value the real worth of 

money used locally. This multiplier is 3.5 to 4 times the actual investment. This 

means that an investment of $288.2 million in the WAP could yield nearly $1.2 

billion in economic benefits to local communities. 

—Reducing consumption of imported fuels by reducing residential energy consumption. Our country currently imports nearly 60 percent of its oil from foreign countries. This figure is higher than the import percentage in the 1970s, 

when the oil embargo threatened our ability to operate as a nation. The conservation efforts of the WAP network will help reduce our country’s dependency 

on foreign oil, thereby strengthening our country’s national security. 

In 2001, the Administration earmarked the WAP as a ‘‘Presidential Priority’’ in 

its National Energy Policy Plan. President Bush committed $1.4 billion to be added 

to WAP over a ten-year period to help thousands of low-income families meet their 

energy needs while reducing their energy burden. Each year since then, the Administration has asked for higher appropriations levels in their budgets submitted to 

Congress. In response to these higher budget requests, this Committee did vote to 

increase the WAP in 2002 to $230 million—$40 million less than the President’s request but an increase over 2001 levels. In 2003, the President requested $277.1 million for this Program and your Committee passed a bill that funded the WAP at 

$240 million. Unfortunately, the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2003 ended with a 

cut of $5 million for the Program from the 2002 level of $230 million (far below the 

President’s request). Again in 2004, the President, in keeping with his commitment 

to WAP as a ‘‘priority’’ within his energy strategy, has asked Congress to appropriate $288.2 million for the Program. Our organization strongly supports the President’s request and would respectfully request this Committee to provide the funding 

at the budget request level of $288.2 million to meet the President’s priority for 

WAP. 

NASCSP is also concerned about the low level of funding proposed for the State 

Energy Programs (SEP) in 2004. SEP enjoys a broad constituency, supporting state 

energy efficiency programs that include energy generation, fuels diversity, energy 

use in economic development, and promoting more efficient uses of traditional energy resources. SEP funding has fallen steadily from a recent high in 1995 of $53 

million to its fiscal year 2003 level of $45 million. The President’s fiscal year 2004 

request is a further cut to $38 million. The state energy offices are the crucial centers for organizing energy emergency preparedness. They have been asked to do 

much new work in the sensitive area of infrastructure security. Taking into consideration this growing burden, the increasing difficulty of managing energy resources, 

together with increasing opportunities for states to implement cost-saving, efficiency-enhancing measures, we are supporting their request of $74 million for fiscal 

year 2004. This level would restore the program’s recent funding cuts, enhance their 

ability to address energy emergency preparedness, and allow for inflationary impacts since 1995. 

By the evidence provided herein, this Committee can be assured that the increase 

in WAP and SEP funding will provide essential services to thousands of low-income 

families, resulting in greater energy savings, more economic investments, increased 

leveraging of other funds, and less reliance on high-cost, foreign oil—outcomes that 

will benefit the nation. NASCSP looks forward to working with Committee members 

in the future as we attempt to create energy self-sufficiency for millions of American 

families through these invaluable national programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, NASEO submits this testimony 

in support of funding for a variety of U.S. Department of Energy programs. Specifically, we are testifying in support of no less than $362.2 million in funding for the 

State Grant programs, including, the State Energy Program (SEP) ($74 million) and 

the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) ($288.2 million). This figure moves 

in the direction of President Bush’s promise included in his campaign issue paper 
435

to double the Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program. 

This campaign promise would provide $76 million for SEP and $306 million for 

WAP. We also support an important program which has been a dramatic success, 

the State Energy Programs Special Projects (SEP Special Projects) account, which 

should receive at least level funding of $19 million. SEP Special Projects has set a 

standard for state-federal cooperation and matching funds to achieve critical federal 

and state energy goals. These programs are successful and have a strong record of 

delivering savings to low-income Americans, homeowners, businesses, and industry. 

We also support an increase of $600,000 for the Energy Information Administration’s State Heating Oil and Propane Program in order to cover the added costs of 

doubling the frequency of information collection (to weekly), the addition of natural 

gas, and increasing the number of state participants. Generally, EIA funding is a 

critical piece of energy emergency preparedness and response. NASEO continues to 

support at least level funding for a variety of critical deployment programs, including Rebuild America, Energy Star, NICE3 and Industries of the Future. Proposed 

cuts in these programs are counter-productive and are detrimental to a balanced national energy policy. The states also strongly support increased funding for the State 

Technology Advancement Collaborative (STAC). The fiscal year 2003 conference report allocated $3 million for State Cooperative R, D, D&D initiatives and $5 million 

from the science initiative for this effort. We are moving forward as quickly as possible to implement this directive of the Subcommittee. It is a new area of cooperation. Our hope is that it will speed procurement sand dramatically improve multistate/federal cooperation and coordination. 

Over the last year, both oil and gas prices have been rising in response to international events as well as very low domestic inventories. Even in the absence of the 

international situation, the United States may very well find itself in the grips of 

an energy crisis as summer approaches. In addition, we now have quantifiable evidence of the success of the SEP program, which we did not have in years past, 

which demonstrates the unparalleled savings and return on investment to the federal taxpayer of SEP. 

In January 2003, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) completed a study and 

concluded: ‘‘The impressive savings and emissions reductions numbers, ratios of savings to funding, and payback periods... indicate that the State Energy Program 

is operating effectively and is having a substantial positive impact on the nation’s 

energy situation.’’

The ORNL study found that $1 in SEP funding yields: 

—$7.23 in annual energy cost savings 

—1.17 million source MMBTUs saved 

—$3.54 in leveraged funding from the states and private sector 

—Annual energy savings of 41,358,478 BTUs 

—Annual cost savings of $256,422,600

The annual cost-effective emissions reductions associated with the energy savings 

are equally significant: (1) Carbon—719,251.8 metric tons; (2) VOCs—127.2 metric 

tons; (3) NOX—5,739 metric tons; (4) PM10—144.8 metric tons; (5) SO2—7,655.7 

metric tons; and (6) CO—968.7 metric tons 

It is important to note that the actual program benefits are even greater since 

the ORNL study quantifies the benefits of only 14 SEP program areas, representing 

about 60 percent of SEP funding. This means that the savings above are calculated 

on 100 percent of SEP funding but include only 60 percent of the results. Results 

not quantified include clean energy production activities such as demonstration of 

alternative fuels, development of wind energy resources, and geothermal activities. 

In addition, essential energy emergency preparedness and response activities are 

not quantified by the ORNL study (since the study focused only on energy efficiency 

activities). 

EXAMPLES OF RECENT SEP-FUNDED ACTIVITIES

North Dakota 

The North Dakota Energy Office has been at the forefront of a sustained effort 

to explore the economic viability of wind energy and to promote its development. 

The office has utilized State Energy Program (‘‘SEP’’) funding and other funds to 

forge several partnerships that have resulted in a high level of wind energy activity 

in the state, as well as other important state-based clean energy activities. 

The North Dakota Energy Office initiated a comprehensive, utility-sponsored 

statewide resource assessment of wind involving all seven of North Dakota’s generation and transmission utilities. The office worked with local development corporations, DOE’s Wind Powering America program, the Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and several others to create one of 
436

the best ongoing wind resource assessment programs in the country. In addition, the 

office is active in statewide landowner meetings in partnership with the grassroots 

organization ND SEED (Sustainable Energy for Economic Development) and EAPC 

Engineers/Architects of Grand Forks, along with other information dissemination efforts. Wind energy integration studies are ongoing. 

Wind energy is an important new industry to North Dakota. The state has a turbine blade manufacturer in Grand Forks, ND, a tower manufacturer in West Fargo, 

ND, and related engineering, development, and construction businesses, employing 

hundreds of people. With recent installations and announcements by Minnkota 

Power Cooperative, Montana-Dakota Utilities, and Basin Electric Power Cooperative, North Dakota will move from an installed capacity of .35 MW of wind generation to over 65 MW by the end of 2004, with more on the horizon. 

New Mexico 

The New Mexico Energy Office Wind Energy Program is making great strides in 

preparing the way for large-scale wind development. The SEP-supported program 

has completed an essential wind resource assessment and monitoring effort, which 

will aid industry in determining the feasibility and best locations for wind development. To date, six sites have been selected for intense monitoring and all appear 

to have significant commercial potential. In addition, the energy office has conducted necessary economic impact studies and other research that lays the groundwork for the private sector to commit substantial capital and add fuel diversity to 

the state’s 99 percent fossil-fired generation fleet. The total $400,000 in SEP funds 

will garner nearly $90 million in state incentives for wind projects, and the state 

reports that over 200 MW of wind capacity is scheduled to go line by end of 2003. 

In addition, the success and data collected to date have been essential in aiding 

state decision makers as they considered a renewable portfolio standard, which will 

be effective later in 2003, with a goal of 10 percent renewable generation by 2011. 

Montana 

The Montana Energy Office completed a demonstration of biodiesel fuel in Yellowstone National Park in December 2002. The project addresses the problem of air pollution caused by millions of tourists who visit the park every year. Biodiesel is produced in Montana from rapeseed oil (ethyl esters) or potato residues generated by 

the food processing industry. The project documents performance and emissions reductions using EPA protocols from operating a conventional diesel engine on 100 

percent biodiesel. The truck operated normally for 121,000 miles and started well 

in cold weather. In fact, the only time it failed to start during the experiment was 

when the temperature was ¥37° on a day when many other vehicles also failed to 

start. Among other findings, the sweet odor of the exhaust did not attract bears, 

which was a concern for park rangers at the beginning of the experiment. 

Washington 

The Washington Energy Office established a telework program with funding from 

SEP a number of years ago. The program has grown more successful each year, with 

increasing private-sector cost share and the expansion of the program to Oregon, Arizona, and Texas. The program reduces vehicle miles traveled, saves energy, improves air quality, reduces traffic congestion, and enhances job opportunities. Following the events of 9/11/01, the states were able to use telework as a foundation 

for emergency management plans. The SEP-supported telework program has leveraged more than $1 million in funds to create a comprehensive package of telework 

tools including guidebooks, training kits, on-line training, case studies, and web 

sites. The program has aided organizations in 46 states and 12 countries in establishing programs. And the U.S. Office of Personnel Management lists Telework Collaborative training materials on its telework web site as suggested resources for 

Federal agencies. The multi-state results are impressive: State agency teleworkers 

in OR, WA, AZ, and TX drive 8.5 million fewer miles, saving 283,000 gallons of gasoline. (Note that substantially more savings are achieved by the program’s private 

sector participants.) State agency teleworkers in OR, WA, AZ, and TX reduce 2,300 

tons CO2 annually. 

Florida 

The Florida Energy Office’s Sensible Sustainable Technology Program promotes 

the use of alternative fuels and renewable energy technologies and reduces fossil 

fuel environmental impacts. The program demonstrates sensible sustainable technologies at schools, government buildings and state recreation facilities. These technologies include, for example, daylighting, geothermal heat pumps, solar 

dehumidification and solar security and street lighting. The results to date include 

energy savings of: (1) Daytime lighting loads—640,360 BTUs per lumen; (2) 
437

Dehumidification loads—642,940 BTUs per operating hour; (3) Combined savings 

from all projects reduced average Energy Users Index 31,977 BTUs per square foot 

per year—$739,681; and (4) Fossil fuel savings—5,424 barrels of oil or 1,379 tons 

of coal. Emissions reductions have been 9,250,949 pounds of power plant emissions. 

The projects have also saved 6,405,386 gallons of water. 

Tennessee 

The Tennessee Energy Office’s SEP—Energy Smart Schools activity reduces the 

energy dollars spent by schools and showcases the economic benefits of energy efficiency to school systems throughout Tennessee. The energy office assists schools 

with energy efficiency lighting retrofits, and aided in the delivery of $500,000 worth 

of lighting improvements in 12 schools in Fayette County. Energy savings have been 

1,687,930 kWh annually with annual cost savings of $108,000. The Project’s lifetime 

economic benefit is $3,766,761—or $7.53 for each $1.00 expended under the project. 

Pennsylvania 

The Pennsylvania Energy Office used SEP to aid in implementing the Philadelphia Livable Neighborhood Project. The project empowers individuals to save energy 

by adopting environmentally sustainable practices, and worked with 50 EcoTeams 

(250 households) in low income, urban neighborhoods to achieve energy reductions 

through energy efficiency and conservation. The project resulted in the following energy savings: (1) Energy use reduced by 9 percent; (2) transportation fuel use reduced by 13 percent; (3) Per household—14,611,472 fewer BTUs used for transportation; (4) 117 gallons less transportation fuel used per household—equivalent to 

105.2 gallons distillate #2 fuel oil; and (5) each of 91 households saved $195—Combined $17,745. Emissions reductions of CO2 has been 3,711 pounds. Funds leveraged 

include: (1) $30K SEP funds; (2) $100K City of Philadelphia; and (3) $63K PA Department of Environmental Protection, Growing Greener. Other savings included 

garbage reduced by 34 percent and water use reduced by 27 percent and neighborhood revitalization should lead to business development. 

Ohio 

The Ohio Energy Office’s Residential Batch Test Protocol program evaluates the 

energy efficiency of homes built to the ENERGYSTAR standard—key to ensuring 

the actual delivery of savings to homeowners. The testing supported by the program 

examined the feasibility of a sampling approach verifying that homes meet the 

ENERGYSTAR standard rather than more costly mass inspections. This important 

pilot addresses the need for large production builders to find a cost-effective means 

of assessing the efficiency performance of the ENERGY STAR homes they construct. 

The resulting homes, built to standard and affirmed by the batch test method, will 

deliver Ohioans an estimated total annual savings of over 3,670 million BTUs and 

savings to the homeowners that will exceed $7.5 million. 

Texas 

The Texas Energy Office’s Loan Star program has long produced great success by 

reducing building energy consumption and taxpayers’ energy costs through efficient 

operation of public buildings. For example, a recently announced energy efficiency 

loan to the El Paso Independent School District will save more than $60,000 per 

year in energy costs. The loan is in the amount of $444,075 and will be used to install high-efficiency lighting in schools throughout the district. The loan will pay for 

itself in about seven years, and El Paso will reap the savings from the lighting for 

many years thereafter. 

Since its inception in 1989, the Texas’ program has distributed more than $163 

million in loans to 142 public institutions. So far, the Texas Energy Office estimates 

that the program has saved Texas more than $123 million in energy costs, and savings grow every year. Over the next 20 years, Texas estimates that the program will 

save taxpayers $500 million. The Texas Comptroller said of the program, ‘‘Energy 

conservation programs like LoanSTAR are important economic tools for Texans. 

When we encourage the efficient use of energy, we save tax dollars and help preserve our natural resources.’’ 

New York 

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) 

Flex Tech program continues to succeed by encouraging energy efficiency in commercial and industrial sectors, by providing cost-shared and objective engineering 

assistance to increase energy efficiency and productivity. With $750,000 per year of 

SEP funds the program provides technical information on energy improvements and 

implementation of energy efficiency. The SEP-funded portion saves 70,000 barrels 

of oil equivalent per year, and the entire program saves the following: (1) 20,000 
438

mWh of electricity per year = electricity use of more than 3,300 households; (2) 

5,000 kW peak load reduction per year = ∼one-third cost of NGCC plant; (3) 200,000 

MMBtu of natural gas per year = 195 million cubic feet; and (4) 200,000 MMBtu 

of oil per year = 34,500 barrels of crude oil. Emissions reductions include: (1) CO2∼ 30,000 tons per year; (2) NOX ∼40 tons per year; and (3) SO2 ∼80 tons per year. SEP funds leverage $14 million in capital improvements, $4 million per year of energy and operational savings and creates 130 jobs. 

CALIFORNIA

The California Energy Commission, Building Energy Code Training initiative uses 

SEP and other funds to save energy through energy code training for large production builders, and improves compliance with California’s Residential Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24)—with the cooperation and support of California’s homebuilders. The public-private partnership program provides training in 

quality energy-related construction practices (insulation, space conditioning, plumbing, etc.) To date, more than 400 builder companies and 3,000 builder and local 

building department staff have participated. Before the program was implemented, 

new homes complied with the standards only 15 percent of the time. Following 

training, participating builders were in compliance 77 percent of the time. The result is 125,000 new homeowners have directly benefited in the builder-supported 

program. Results include energy savings of: (1) more than 69 trillion Btus annually 

in energy efficiency or $600,000,000 in reduced electricity use, equivalent to nearly 

1.7 million households; (2) over 6 years: 388 trillion Btus or $3.3 billion annually 

for life of homes = electricity use of nearly 9.5 million households; (3) annual consumer savings over 150 percent of one-time training costs; and (4) total savings = 

production of 2 ‘‘peaker’’ power plants. Emissions reductions include: (1) CO2—

101,196 pounds; (2) ¥SO2—7,197 pounds; and (3) NOX—7,833 pounds. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion we would like to remind the Subcommittee of the successes that 

State Energy Offices deliver to the taxpayer in spite of the relatively small federal 

investment in the program. This modest federal investment, through the State Energy Program, is the type of success that state-federal energy partnerships can deliver. The states’ success is based upon our ability to directly meet the needs of taxpayers, small business people, farmers, and industry. We are asking for $74 million 

in funding for SEP for fiscal year 2004; a small price to pay for success. As Congress 

and the Administration consider the development of a new energy policy, we understand the need to prioritize funding. We need to achieve a balance between demand 

side and supply side resources. The programs we discuss today can help us address 

our energy problems, both in the near-term and the long-term. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION

The National Mining Association’s (NMA) member companies account for approximately three-fourths of the coal production in the United States, over one billion 

tons annually, and the vast majority of mined minerals including iron ore, copper, 

gold, silver, uranium lead, zinc, and phosphate. The purpose of this statement is to 

present the mining industry’s views on fiscal year 2004 programs for the following 

agencies: Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Energy Information Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey. 

OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY

National Mining Association strongly supports the Future Gen project recently 

announced by Secretary of Energy Abraham. The integration of coal gasification 

technology, combined cycle electricity generation, hydrogen production and carbon 

sequestration is an important step for our nation’s energy future. Over the long 

term, domestic coal can continue to provide the basis for affordable electricity and 

become the basis for affordable hydrogen to use in transportation and other uses. 

When coupled with carbon sequestration, America can move rapidly toward energy 

independence with near zero to zero emissions. Although the Department of Energy’s (DOE) fiscal year 2004 budget does not specifically incorporate this project we 

understand that DOE will use unspent dollars from the Clean Coal program to help 

with start up costs. NMA supports reprogramming these unspent dollars in this 

way, but oppose taking dollars that are already budgeted for important ongoing research for this program. The results of much of the ongoing research in all the coal 

programs will ultimately be used as part of the Future Gen project and should not 
439

be shortchanged now. As announced, Future Gen will require funding participation 

from the public and private sector. NMA members are currently evaluating opportunities to participate in a core group of industrial interests that will help fund the 

private-sector share of the project. 

NMA supports the DOE Clean Coal Power Initiative’s (CCPI) requested level 

funding of $130 million to continue with the government-industry partnerships that 

demonstrate innovations to allow coal-fueled power plants to operate more efficiently and with improved environmental performance. We understand that this will 

be combined with funding from the fiscal year 2005 budget into a solicitation so that 

larger projects can be undertaken. 

The Clean Coal Technology Program (CCTP) has been one of the most successful 

cooperative research, development and demonstration efforts between the government and industry, due in large part to Congress providing it with advanced funding. This financial commitment gave lending institutions and industry the confidence to move forward with high-risk, innovative projects. The same ‘‘up front’’ 

commitment should be considered for the 10-year, $2 billion, CCPI in order to assure that the results of the clean coal programs contribute to our nation’s energy 

and economic security in a timely and effective manner. 

At the same time, ongoing R&D activities must be maintained and expanded to 

support the greater use of coal while addressing the new SO2, NOX and mercury 

standards proposed under the Clear Skies Initiative. If funding for central system 

research and for the fuels program is reduced, as proposed by the DOE budget, it 

will be more difficult for these technologies to be developed in the time frame required. Many of these programs will be used to support Future Gen. We support 

the overall increase in funds for the total coal program (an increase over fiscal year 

2003 levels) but note that the request is still below fiscal year 2002 spending levels. 

We urge the Congress to increase the budget to fiscal year 2002 levels with the increase designated for the central systems and fuels programs. 

In particular, NMA supports the increase in research funds allocated to the Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle program. We understand that much of this increase is due to the fact that the dollars previously dedicated to research on Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combustion have been transferred to this account. We would 

support an additional increase to this account so that there are sufficient funds to 

cover technology development in both areas. NMA recommends that the funding for 

turbine research be increased from the proposed $13 million to at least $20 million. 

The current budget request is enough to maintain existing research, but is insufficient to begin new research in this area that is important to coal and all fuels. 

Vision 21 looks to the future where highly efficient power plants will continue to 

use coal and other fossil fuels to provide Americans with low-cost electricity and 

other products. This program is important to support the President’s long term hydrogen initiative. Vision 21 will build on and incorporate many of the technologies 

developed in the original Clean Coal Technology program as well as the Clean Coal 

Power Initiative. The work that DOE is proposing for fiscal year 2004 is critical if 

Vision 21 technologies are to be demonstrated by 2015. NMA supports funding at, 

or above, the requests for Vision 21. 

Carbon Capture and Sequestration technologies promise to offer an alternative to 

emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. They are also an important part of the 

President’s Future Gen initiative. Most of these projects will be a longer term, but 

research must begin now. NMA supports the request for an increase in carbon capture and sequestration funding to $62 million as a vital part of any climate change 

initiative. 

Coal Research and Development, Fuels Research.—It is important to continue 

funding for coal preparation and liquefaction technologies as advanced coal preparation technologies promise to reduce the cost of continued use of coal in traditional 

applications in large industrial and electric utility boilers. It is important to continue the industry cost-shared research work on technologies for manufacturing advanced carbon-based products. Research in the areas of advanced technologies for 

solid-solid and solid-liquid separations directed toward fuel production and use is 

equally important. The funding for the entire solid fuels program has been reduced 

to $5 million with support for solid-liquid separations eliminated entirely. NMA supports restoring $4.0 million for advanced separation research and increasing the entire solid fuels budget to $15 million. 

NMA supports continued funding of the Steubenville Comprehensive Air Monitoring Program (SCAMP) to develop information essential for defining the relationship between fine particulate matter (PM) concentrations in ambient air and the 

fine PM concentrations to which individuals are exposed. SCAMP is co-funded by 

the Department of Energy, the Ohio Coal Development Office, the National Mining 
440

Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Electric Power Research Institute, the American Iron and Steel Institute, and CONSOL Inc. 

University Research.—The DOE should continue to provide strong support for research on mining at the academic institutions. We are very pleased to see an increase in direct funding for University coal research that will nearly double the fiscal year 2002 spending levels. Mining engineering departments continue to consolidate and some are closing, due to lack of funding. Thus, diminishing the national 

capability to develop fundamental sciences to improve mining practices, and impairing the ability of the universities to train future generations of mining engineers. 

The $5 million requested for University research, with the increase dedicated to 

projects that focus on mercury control technologies, is important to support our educational system. 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

The Mining Industry of the Future Program.—The 58 percent funding reduction 

proposed by the Administration’s budget must be rejected and funding levels restored to at least the $5.6 million dollar level appropriated for fiscal year 2003. The 

proposed cut to $2.35 million would mean that several of the projects already underway would have to be halted in mid-stream. No new research projects starts would 

be possible. The research priorities developed through this industry/government 

partnership offer important direction to the Department of Energy, industry and 

Congress for a sustainable mining industry in the 21st Century. Response to the 

program has been overwhelming. Since the program was begun in 1999, 132 proposals totaling nearly $150 million have been received—at 50 percent, DOE’s cost 

share would be nearly $75 million. Clearly there is a need for mining research that 

is not being satisfied as only a portion of these projects could be funded. Of the total 

projects started to date, industry’s cost share is just over 55 percent, or about $36 

million. 

In early 2003 five new processing projects led by universities and industry were 

selected from 21 new proposals, bringing the total active projects funded to date to 

33. Of these, 10 have been concluded or will be completed this summer. As these 

projects wrap-up, the program had hoped to get several other R&D-related activities 

underway. A mining and exploration solicitation was issued early in 2003, with the 

goal of selecting new projects by the end of the year. We expect that many of the 

proposals will be in the area of mine safety. If the proposed cuts stand, this solicitation can not go forward. 

NMA has incorporated the Mining Industry of the Future program into its Mining 

Climate Action Plan (MICAP) developed in response to the Administration’s request 

to industry to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed cuts 

would jeopardize the NMA’s efforts in this climate plan. 

ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION (EIA)

In addition to its value to the nation, the functions performed by the EIA are of 

significant importance to the mining industry. EIA’s unbiased analysis and independent short and long-term forecasts form a basis for reasoned and responsible policy decisions by the Congress, the DOE and other government agencies on both the 

Federal and State levels. EIA’s independence and objectivity are especially important as governments develop policies to respond to energy price increases and/or to 

possible energy shortages. EIA’s energy data collection and dissemination responsibilities are essential to industry’s ability to evaluate production and market trends 

and to make investment decisions that accrue benefit to the nation. 

Unfortunately, the quality, consistency and timeliness of the underlying data collected and published by EIA—data that provides the basis for both industry market 

analysis and for public policy decisions—was bad last year and continues to deteriorate in terms of quality, completeness and accuracy. Although the EIA has made 

significant strides in improving their data on coal production, the data on the vital 

electric utility sector continues to be late, incomplete and nearly unusable. Consistency in data collection—even on a month-to-month basis—is nonexistent. There is 

no consistency in reporting data. For example, the Monthly Energy Review has two 

completely different and seemingly unrelated sets of numbers for coal consumption 

and stocks at utilities. EIA should put the matter of the electric utility data base 

at the top of its priority list. Unfortunately the nation is considering a national energy strategy and new environmental policies on the basis of this flawed data. While 

we support the current funding levels suggested for EIA, and would certainly support an increase, we would urge that the Committee again include directions to the 

EIA to take immediate steps to improve the quality of the data collected and pub-
441

lished. Sound public policy cannot be made if the underlying information used is 

faulty. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)

The USGS’s role in mineral information exploration, identification of geological 

hazards and mapping offers important support to the mining industry. NMA supports maintaining these programs at current or expanded levels. In addition, the 

USGS is the only source for most of the United States’ statistical data on mining 

and minerals commodities. This information provides the basis for informed policy 

decisions by government and is extensively used by other government agencies, by 

Members of Congress and by State and local governments, as well as industry, academia and nongovernmental organizations. NMA opposes the proposed $8.1 million 

reduction of funding for the Mineral Resource Program in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. It is already difficult to maintain the data quality and timeliness that 

is so important—not just to the industry for market analysis purpose—but to the 

Administration and the Congress when developing and implementing public policy. 

Our nation is becoming more dependent upon foreign sources to meet our metals 

and minerals requirements as exploration and development of domestic resources is 

declining. Development of a National Minerals Policy to halt and reverse this trend 

is vital to our nation’s economic future and strategic defense. The information collected and made available by the USGS will become all the more important in future years as Congress begins to consider elements of a National Minerals Policy. 

It is important that it be maintained at least at current levels. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH CENTER FOR COAL AND ENERGY, 

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Dorgan, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony regarding the programs of the Office of Fossil Energy and the Office of Energy Efficiency in the Department of Energy. We recommend continued strong support for coal programs and restored funding for critical elements of the Fossil Energy and Energy Efficiency programs which 

were reduced in the budget proposal advanced by the Administration. Comments on 

specific programs are offered below. 

FOSSIL ENERGY PROGRAMS

From an overall perspective, we believe that funding recommended for fossil energy research and development is far below the amount needed to implement technologies which meet our energy needs, are environmentally friendly, and promote 

our energy security. We urge the Subcommittee to find additional funds to support 

the overall program at levels at least as high as the Subcommittee approved for fiscal year 2002. 

Clean Coal Power Initiative.—Funding for the Clean Coal Power Initiative needs 

to be in excess of $150 million if we are to achieve the Administration’s ten year 

goal of providing $2 billion in support of demonstrating clean coal technologies. Reducing the fiscal year 2004 appropriation by $20 million compared to fiscal year 

2003 because of unspent funds remaining from previous years is detrimental to the 

objectives of this program. Significant investments are made by power companies 

to propose projects which place them at high risk should out-year funds not be available. We need to know that continued funding would be assured and that funds are 

available in each competition to accommodate the large-scale projects necessary to 

prove new clean coal technology at commercial scales. 

Fuels Program.—Funding for the fuels research program in fiscal year 2004 has 

been allocated exclusively to initiate programs for hydrogen production from coal. 

While we applaud the initiation of the hydrogen program, we are deeply concerned 

regarding the proposed cuts for research directed toward liquid transportation fuels 

from coal. With automobiles numbering in excess of 200 million and large fleets of 

trucks, aircraft, and marine vessels, we continue to need advanced research to develop clean burning fuels for the private, commercial, and military transportation 

sectors. In addition to environmentally friendly fuels, we also must increase our energy security and decrease our dependence on imported petroleum products. Continued funding is also recommended for solid fuels and feedstocks research to improve 

the quality of coal products while reducing the environmental impacts of their extraction and use. 

We make the following requests regarding programs in transportation fuels and 

chemicals currently being supported by the Subcommittee: 
442

—Early Entrance Co-Production Program: Funding for the EECP program should be continued at a level of $3 million in fiscal year 2004 to complete research 

initiated on the WMPI and Texaco projects. 

—Work in Ultra Clean fuels should be continued to complete projects such as the 

ICRC/Syntroleum program. This program involves developing a small-footprint 

gas-to-liquids plant with demonstrations in Alaska and Washington, D.C. An 

additional investment of $4 million is requested to complete this project and 

harvest the benefits from the $19 million in federal funds invested thus far and 

which were also matched by a similar investment from the private sector. 

—Funding should be restored to continue the C–1Chemistry program in fiscal year 2004 at the current level of $2 million. Additional funding of $2 million 

is recommended to initiate advanced research into liquid fuels for military applications. 

—Under the China-United States Bilateral Agreement, we have an opportunity to 

study the design, construction, operation, and environmental and economic impacts of a large coal-based liquid fuels production facility. We recommend the 

addition of $0.5 million to the international component of the Fossil Energy program to conduct this study. The plant operators in China will provide significant cost sharing with additional cost sharing from the United States side. 

We note that the FutureGen project proposed by the Administration has the essential elements to produce liquid fuels, not just hydrogen, and urge the Subcommittee to recommend that DOE focus on liquid fuels production along with demonstrating advanced coal gasification, hydrogen production and carbon sequestration 

technologies under this initiative. We further recommend that Fossil Energy be encouraged to develop coal-based programs funded under the Department of Defense 

to address the needs of the military for advanced fuels which meet logistical requirements. 

We make the following requests regarding programs in solid fuels and feedstocks 

currently being supported by the Subcommittee: 

—Funding for the Center for Advanced Separations Technology [CAST] should be increased to $4 million to meet mortgages for the current program of research 

supported by the National Energy Technology Laboratory. According to the 

2002 Mineral Commodity Summary, the mining industry contributes 5.6 percent of the Gross Domestic Product of the United States and the major industries further increase the value of these minerals to a total of 17 percent of the 

GDP. 

—We recommend that funds also be found to initiate programs targeted toward 

developing advanced mining technologies and training future miners in view of 

the importance of this activity to our economic development. —Funding for the coal extraction program should be continued at a level of $1.5 

million in fiscal year 2004. In addition, funding for the Consortium for Premium 

Carbon Products from Coal should be continued at a level of $1 million. Both 

of these programs focus on producing useful carbon products from coal, a need 

which is more critical since many of the traditional sources of carbon feedstocks 

are unavailable due to the loss of coking ovens associated with steel manufacturing and the need to find alternative carbon sources other than imported petroleum. 

Focus Area for Computational Energy Science.—This program develops models 

and dynamic simulations of advanced energy plants to improve the speed and reduce the costs of developing advanced systems. The modeling results are applicable 

to a wide variety of fossil energy technologies such as fuel cells, advanced turbines, 

combustion systems, FutureGen, and chemical reactors. We request that the funding for this program be restored to the level of $5 million which the Subcommittee 

supported in fiscal year 2002. 

High Temperature Electrochemistry Center.—The High Temperature Electrochemistry Center [HiTEC] serves as a primary technology underpinning for Fossil 

Energy’s Advanced Energy Conversion Concepts, such as FutureGen. HiTEC develops technologies which can resolve technology barriers standing in the way of developing the power generation systems of the future. This center is supported in the 

Other Power Systems/Distributed Generation Systems element of the Fossil Energy 

program and has been recommended for funding at $10 million by the Administration for fiscal year 2004. We request that an additional $2 million be added for a 

total of $12 million to expand the scope of this program to include other university 

participants. 

Innovations for Existing Plants.—Waste management issues associated with coal 

combustion and gasification byproducts require continued research to maximize recycle use of coal utilization byproducts for various market applications and to facilitate technology transfer. We recommend that funding for this line item be increased 
443

to $3 million [vs. $2,475 Administration request] to provide at least $1 million for 

research on the utilization of combustion byproducts. 

Oil and Gas Programs.—The regional Resource Centers funded under the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council [PTTC] program provide technology and training 

to many small oil and gas companies throughout the nation. The expertise in these 

centers contributes to important programs such as regional carbon sequestration. 

We recommend that the PTTC program be continued in fiscal year 2004 at a level 

of $3 million. We also recommend continuation of the PUMP program. 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS

Industries of the Future.—We are concerned that the fiscal year 2004 Administration budget request has significantly reduced funding for the Industries of the Future program by about 30 percent compared to fiscal year 2003. Of particular concern is the drastic reduction in funding for the Industries of the Future (Specific) 

Program. We have found that the IOF (Specific) programs enable the energy intensive industries to rally together in focal programs which build strong partnerships. 

The proposed cut will severely curtail the Mining IOF program. We request that the 

Industry of the Future (Specific) program be restored to the fiscal year 2003 level 

of $52.3 million. 

FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program.—As with the Fossil Energy programs, we are concerned about the focused investment in hydrogen research for fiscal year 2004 at the expense of research in traditional liquid fuels. Our nation will 

use liquid fuels into the foreseeable future as we develop hydrogen technologies. It 

is important that we continue investments in liquid fuels. The present budget request from the Administration has essentially deleted funding for these areas. We 

should continue work toward developing non-petroleum based fuels using feedstocks 

such as coal. We request that the Subcommittee restore funding for Fuels Technology programs to the fiscal year 2002 level of $24.65 million. We have a particular 

interest in the following: 

—Non-Petroleum Based Fuels and Lubricants: We request funding for continuing 

the programs of the National Research Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines 

and Emissions at a level of $2 million in fiscal year 2004. 

—Automotive Lightweight Materials: We request funding for continuing the Metal 

Matrix Composites program at a level of $1 million in fiscal year 2004. 

—Fueling Infrastructure: There are over 130,000 natural gas vehicles and over 

300,000 compressed natural gas cylinders in use. Detailed visual inspection 

must be performed every three years or 36,000 miles. There are few certified 

inspectors, and no widely available program to train such individuals. We request funding of $1 million to continue an initiative begun in fiscal year 2003 

to develop a Natural Gas Vehicle Compressed Natural Gas Cylinder Safety Inspection and Certification Training program under the leadership of the National Alternative Fuels Training Consortium [NAFTC]. The NAFTC is an organization of 22 institutions which provide training in alternative fuel vehicle 

safety and maintenance. These programs will also be applicable to storing hydrogen fuels. 

CLOSING COMMENTS

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on these important programs. 

We appreciate the support of the Subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PETROLEUM TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COUNCIL

PROGRAM SUPPORT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY OIL

AND NATURAL GAS R&D PROGRAM

In support of the Department of Energy (DOE) R&D program, this letter is to provide background on the Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) and focus 

on the need for the continued research required in the United States today. Independents continue to drill 85 percent of the wells in the United States. The 7,000 

Independents with an average of 12 employees lack the resources, time and money 

to pursue research or spend valuable resources looking for technology related information. As with the Agriculture Extension Program, PTTC focuses on bringing practical information to producers in a form they can readily apply. This provides critical adult education to those out there in the field developing new oil and gas reserves. Both programs seek to make America stronger through the education of 

available technology. 
444

PTTC is a national not-for-profit organization directed by industry representatives, primarily independent producers. PTTC was established in 1994 to disseminate technology ideas that were proven yet not widely accepted across the country 

to enhance domestic production of oil and natural gas. The PTTC program is a cost 

sharing arrangement with Federal funding by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy, through 

a grant from the National Petroleum Technology Office (NPTO) and Strategic Center for Natural Gas (SCNG) within the National Energy Technology Lab (NETL). 

Several state governments, universities, state geological surveys, and industry provide matching 50:50 cost-share and fully participate in the program. 

For U.S. independent oil and natural gas producers, obtaining access to cost-effective exploration and production (E&P) technologies is an act of survival. With limited technical staffs, independents need field-tested and proven, cost-effective solutions to their E&P problems. The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) 

enables independents to make timely, informed technology decisions—through targeted connections to potential solutions—in its five program lines: 

—Exploration 

—Drilling and Completion 

—Operations and Production 

—Reservoir Management 

—Environmental Concerns 

PTTC functions as the ‘‘Bridge to Solutions’’ for independents by helping them 

identify and clarify problems, by educating them about options for solutions and opportunities, and by connecting them with technology providers. In each of these 

areas, PTTC disseminates information and makes connections via a network of regional resource centers at universities and state geological surveys with strong oil 

and gas expertise. The PTTC organization has 13 regional and satellite offices in 

addition to a national office to implement the transfer of information. 

Smaller companies and independents play an expanding role as primary operators 

in domestic production of oil and gas due to major producers withdrawing from onshore activity. To address the shifting production environment, PTTC’s most important products and services include: 

—Low-cost regional workshops that provide real-world solutions targeted to specific constraints 

—Regional resource centers with technical referral assistance to service companies/consultants and demonstrations of exploration and production software 

—An award-winning national website linked to PTTC’s 13 regional and satellite 

websites and other technical resources 

—Publications and information products including newsletters, technical reports, 

databases, and case studies 

—National Quarterly Newsletter distributed electronically and hard-copy form 

—Petroleum Technology Digest ‘‘Case Studies’’ published in World Oil 

—Tech Connections published in American Oil and Gas Reporter 

Technology Transfer Programs Showing Results 

In nearly 10 years of transferring results to thousands of industry people, PTTC 

has achieved its original goals—and gained the widespread credibility within the 

upstream petroleum industry that is vital to success. PTTC programs disseminate 

cost-effective technological solutions addressing a wide range of problems—exploration, drilling and completion, operations and production, reservoir and development, as well as environmental compliance. 

Following are the most important accomplishments in expanding industry awareness and technology usage at the national and regional level: 

—Technology workshops.—PTTC held approximately 150 workshops last year and 

plans to hold just as many this year. Cumulatively, more than 37,000 individuals, the vast majority from industry, have attended PTTC workshops since inception. To leverage limited resources, most PTTC events are held with other 

organizations such as professional societies and state/regional producers associations. 

—Workshops with DOE.—PTTC has sponsored many workshops to transfer the 

results of DOE programs to independents, including the Technologies for Independents Program. In upcoming events, PTTC actively looks for opportunities 

to highlight DOE-funded project results in its regional workshop programs. 

—Regional resource centers.—Independents contact their local PTTC resource center for a variety of services: (1) access to information/data resources, (2) expert 

response to inquiries, (3) demonstration and training for E&P software, (4) information products, (5) help with understanding technological problems and opportunities, (6) access to special purpose databases, and (7) other outreach efforts. 
445

—E&P Software Training.—PTTC is well respected in producing quality training 

on software packages that reduce risk and keep marginal well producing for 

longer periods, thereby gaining more of recoverable hydrocarbons. The courses 

offered are filled to capacity on a regular basis, which indicates the need is 

there and relevance is confirmed. 

—Internet websites.—With a national website plus 13 regional and satellite sites, 

PTTC’s electronic network is a key delivery system for oil and gas information, 

data, case studies, calendars of events, and technical summaries. Industry 

usage is increasing as the on-line technical content and search capabilities 

grow. 

—Newsletters.—The 16-page, quarterly national newsletter, PTTC Network News, 

reaches over 16,000 readers (approximately 65 percent are independent E&P 

companies). Regional newsletters also inform thousands of local producers about 

technology transfer activities and the results of DOE technical programs. 

—Case Studies/Reports.—PTTC has developed many producer-vendor case studies 

and are releasing new Petroleum Technology Digest case studies in the World 

Oil publication on a monthly basis that reaches over 38,000 readers. These success stories from companies that have successfully applied a technology are popular at showing other producers what is working, thereby reducing risk of application for others and increasing widespread usage of solid ideas. 

—Region-Specific Products.—Several regions have developed products specific to 

local needs, such as the Louisiana Desktop Well Reference on CD–ROM, which 

provides lease and production data. The West Coast Region is developing templates to assist operators reduce produced water production with the participation of the state of California. This has broad appeal for the entire country. 

There are many similar examples in other regions. 

Many DOE programs are designed to encourage environmentally responsible domestic production from marginal fields operated primarily by independent producers. Participation in the form of cost share from industry, state budgets and academia provides substantial leverage for these programs. But the reality is that federal budgets are under strain and even programs with attractive benefits are under 

great scrutiny. 

R&D programs by major producing companies have been significantly downsized. 

The service sector is shouldering more of the R&D responsibility but stock market 

investors force companies to focus on short-term results. Investment in the domestic 

energy sector is severely challenged. All factors combine to create an environment 

where technologies appropriate for mature U.S. reservoirs receive inadequate resources for development or adaptation. In this environment, there is a role for federal funding. 

The federal government balances short-term and long-term objectives in providing 

reliable and affordable energy to consumers across the country. In the short term, 

DOE-supported R&D is making an impact in reducing risks for smaller independent 

operators and many would like that work to continue. These projects would not be 

possible today without participation from DOE. 

The role for government in long-term, high-risk R&D investments is to ensure 

new technologies directed at more unconventional resources continue to enter the 

pipeline to commercialization so they are available in the future. These projects 

have significant potential for leveraging developing technologies in other industries 

for application in the energy industry. Leveraging extends scarce resources and 

speeds commercialization. Adequate funding is essential to stimulate the continued 

flow of technology into the industry. 

The Petroleum Technology Transfer Council (PTTC) appreciates this opportunity 

to submit testimony on behalf of the fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). PTTC strongly supports Congressional funding for DOE 

Fossil Energy’s Oil and Natural Gas Program at a level consistent with the importance of oil and natural gas production to the domestic economy. This level, which 

should be equal or higher than fiscal year 2002-fiscal year 2003 funding levels, is 

far above the level requested in the Administration’s budget. Continued strong funding is needed for DOE to fulfill its role in securing domestic oil and natural gas production. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PLUG POWER INC. 

Plug Power urges the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies to, at the 

least, support the President’s request of $77.5 million for the PEM fuel cell program 

in the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office. 
446

My name is Dr. Roger Saillant, President and Chief Executive Officer of Plug 

Power, Inc., a developer of on-site energy generating systems utilizing proton exchange membrane (‘‘PEM’’) fuel cells for stationary power applications. I am particularly pleased about the opportunity to comment on the U.S Department Of Energy 

Budget. Plug Power, our Latham, NY-based company was founded in 1997, as a 

joint venture of DTE Energy Company and Mechanical Technology Incorporated. 

Plug Power’s fuel cell systems for residential and small commercial stationary applications are expected to be sold globally through a joint venture with the General 

Electric Company, one of the world’s leading suppliers of power generation technology and energy services. 

Plug Power is very enthusiastic about the attention being paid to the impact of 

fuel cell technology on energy transformation and the interest level in Washington. 

As President Bush emphasized during his State of the Union Address, we as a nation currently have an opportunity to make a great difference to our economy, to 

our world position, and to the environment. As an auto company executive veteran 

of 30 years experience, who participated in the auto emission, safety, and fuel economy improvements, I see parallels in the magnitude of the challenges and the scope 

of the outcomes. First, the auto company transition costs were enormous but were 

forced by regulation. Currently, the fuel cell industry in partnership with the U.S. 

Government is trying to facilitate fuel cell based energy transformation improvements through R&D and buy-down incentives at a significant dollar cost. Second, 

this upcoming change in our energy situation is related to worldwide problems of 

natural resource depletion rates and global environmental degradation. Thus, the 

United States must be a technological leader in the emergence of this economic opportunity. And third, going from a centralized distribution model to a mosaic of centralized and distributed generation based on fossil fuels, wind, biomass, solar, and 

nuclear will require inspired leadership from our government over an extended period of time. 

STATIONARY FUEL CELL DESCRIPTION

A stationary fuel cell is an on-site power generation system that electrochemically 

combines hydrogen with oxygen in the air to form electricity. The hydrogen fuel can 

be obtained from readily available fuels, such as natural gas or propane, or in the 

longer term from renewable sources. It can also be generated by electrolyzing water 

with low-cost off-peak electricity, or with electricity obtained from renewable sources 

such as solar, wind, or biomass. Fuel cell systems, whether for the residential, commercial or institutional markets, produce not only electricity, but also heat that can 

be captured and beneficially utilized in these applications (combined heat and power 

[CHP]). This makes such fuel cell systems highly efficient as well as environmentally friendly. This is in stark contrast to central power plants where generally 

the heat is not captured or utilized. The heart of the stationary PEM fuel cell system is the stack, which is comprised of the same technology as is used in most fuel 

cell vehicle applications. 

STATIONARY FUEL CELL BENEFITS

Our traditional central generation model for supply of power in the United States 

is failing to meet the needs of a growing economy with increasing demand for highquality power. There are weaknesses in power generation, transmission and distribution infrastructure that can best be met with the new paradigm of distributed 

generation: placing the generating assets on site, where both the thermal and electric energy is needed. Fuel cells will be an important technology component in our 

nation’s distributed generation portfolio. 

When operating on a fossil fuel such as natural gas, stationary fuel cells using 

reformers emit less than half the CO2 (a primary ‘‘greenhouse gas’’), of a traditional, 

coal-fired power plant. When fueled by hydrogen from a renewable energy source 

such as solar, wind, or hydropower, or if the fuel source is bio-fuel like ethanol from 

plant wastes, CO2 emissions are net zero. 

Fuel cells can provide highly reliable electricity. Some studies estimate that power 

quality and reliability issues cost our economy as much as $150 billion per year in 

lost materials and productivity alone, while others have reported estimates as high 

as $400 billion per year (source: Bear Stearns, April 2000 Distributed Energy, p. 8). 

Fuel cells require hydrogen and oxygen to react chemically and produce electricity 

(and heat) and can therefore use any hydrogen rich fuel, or direct hydrogen. This 

allows fuel cell products to be ‘‘customized’’ for customers’ available fuel. It also provides the option of renewably generated hydrogen for a fully renewable and zero 

emissions energy system. 
447

Because fuel cells provide electricity at the site of consumption, they reduce the 

load on the existing transmission and distribution system. Siting the fuel cells at 

the point of consumption also avoids the line losses (up to 15 percent) inherent in 

moving electricity and provides an alternative to costly and unattractive traditional 

power lines. 

Because fuel cells make both electric and thermal energy where it is needed, the 

heat can be recaptured in combined heat and power applications to attain combined 

efficiencies of over 80 percent. 

Fuel cell systems are quiet. 

STATIONARY FUEL CELL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT NEEDS

Our company participated in the Department of Energy road-mapping process for 

the stationary fuel cell program in 2002. During that process, it became clear that 

the number one R&D need from the U.S. Government is to cost share component 

research and development for significant cost reductions, as well as life and reliability improvements. Additionally, the group suggested that a dedicated national 

laboratory tackle core, pre-competitive R&D issues that are beneficial to all of the 

PEM fuel cell developers. 

Clearly, some fuel cell R&D is crosscutting and has applications for both stationary and transportation applications. For example some of the basic stack component improvements such as materials, catalysts, instrumentation and supporting 

controls, blowers and pumps, will help both applications. In fuel processing, 

synergies between the applications occur as we begin to move to a hydrogen-based 

system that is non on-board. And in the integration of fuel cell systems, some subsystem synergies can be co-utilized. We are pleased that the Department of Energy 

recognizes these synergies and has reorganized into a more comprehensive program. 

Where the fuel cell stack is concerned, this means critical research on both stack 

and fuel processor involve life and unit cost. For stationary applications, weight and 

size can be greater than in automotive applications; however, the life of the fuel cell 

must be at least 40,000 hours compared to an auto fuel cell life need of only 5000 

hours. Ideally, the participants in the development of the fuel cell technology roadmap would like to see a 100,000-hour stack life to make the fuel cell system akin 

to other major ‘‘appliances’’ in the home or building. 

Fuel to feed a stationary stack will be gaseous, such as natural gas or propane 

(or direct hydrogen); therefore, reformer technology is very different from onboard 

vehicular reforming of liquid fuels. Research agendas include the need for significant reformer cost reduction, as well as life and reliability improvements. Fuel clean 

up is also important and there are hence implications for the fuel cell stack and how 

many ‘‘impurities’’ it may be able to accept. 

The integrated system design for the major fuel cell components including supporting subsystems (i.e., cooling, water management, etc.) depends on the application. Integration and systems architecture are very important development needs for 

fuel cell manufacturers, as is manufacturing improvements and research. 

NEED FOR GOVERNMENT R&D AND SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

Plug Power is enthusiastic about the President’s commitment to hydrogen and 

fuel cell technology made evident by his State of the Union Address and budget increase. We feel that there is a vital role for the U.S. Government, and specifically 

the Department of Energy, to work with industry on pre-competitive research and 

on systems architecture and integration with specific products and applications in 

mind. These efforts begin with a fundamental understanding of the PEM fuel cell 

stack membranes, catalysts, plates, as well as reformer fundamentals as they relate 

to contaminant resistant catalysts and hydrogen storage technology. Further, the 

availability of higher quality heat from high temperature (150C to 200C) PEM 

stacks requires fundamental research on stack components and associated systems 

that further increases the value and impact of stationary power systems. Another 

area of high interest is the coupling of hydrogen generation for stationary and automotive applications to further increase overall efficiency and impact the progress toward widespread fuel cell use and greater energy independence. The results of all 

these efforts are universally applicable to fuel cell power systems, speed their commercial introduction, and move the United States closer to energy independence. 

Pre-competitive research is tough for industry. When I first became CEO of Plug 

Power, I wrote to many of the PEM fuel cell developers with a plea that we work 

together on fundamental research issues that are vital to all our interests. This is 

not something a competitive industry will readily undertake. Rather, the government has to take the lead in bringing us all together, ensuring that no one’s rights 

are infringed upon similar to the Semetech approach used in Austin in the late 80’s. 
448

I feel very strongly that there are ‘‘leapfrog’’ technologies that will help all of us in 

the fuel cell industry, while helping the United States become a global technology 

leader in this field. We need to work together, with the DOE taking the lead, to 

find those leapfrog advancements. Without this private-public partnership, the U.S. 

industry will fail to develop and will allow another country to win the race to lead 

this industry. 

We urge this Subcommittee to, at the least, approve the President’s request for 

an additional $20 Million for the PEM fuel cell program in the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SAGE ELECTROCHROMICS, INC. 

SAGE Electrochromics, Inc., located in Faribault, Minnesota, is a developer of energy saving electrochromic (EC) window products and is working in partnership 

with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE.) We at SAGE urge you to recommend 

a budget level of $7,000,000 for the Window’s Technologies Program at DOE including $2.5 million for electrochromics R&D, engineering and systems integration in 

fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations. 

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ELECTROCHROMICS

An electrochromic window (door or skylight) is a solar control device that regulates the flow of light and heat with the push of a button. In this way the window 

tint can be varied from fully colored to completely clear or anywhere in between. 

The electrochromic (EC) properties are achieved through vacuum deposited thin 

films on one of the glass surfaces, with the rest of the construction being very similar to the standard insulated glass used in millions of homes and office buildings. 

THE UNIQUE BENEFITS OF ELECTROCHROMICS AND WHY THEY ARE GOOD FOR THE

COUNTRY

Industrial and government partners in the DOE EC program are performing cost 

shared research and development that will lead to significant energy and cost savings by fundamentally changing the nature and function of window products for tomorrow’s buildings. Significant savings in the cooling and lighting loads can be 

achieved while reducing peak electricity demand. Just as important is the ability 

of EC technologies to improve visual and thermal comfort and thereby increase 

worker productivity and the aesthetics of the home or office space. 

Traditionally, adding windows to a building envelope has meant reducing energy 

efficiency because the other materials in the structure are much more energy efficient. However, with EC technology, windows will become multifunctional energy 

saving appliances in the home or office space and thereby will allow increased use 

of windows for aesthetic reasons. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories 

(LBNL) estimated that the use of EC in average size windows in commercial buildings will reduce cooling electricity consumption by up to 28 percent, lower peak electrical power demand by 6 percent and decrease lighting costs by up to 19 percent 

for the entire building perimeter zone. 

In the residential sector, use of electrochromic windows could lead to a 65 percent 

reduction in cooling over the existing installed base and a 47 percent reduction in 

cooling over the best performing glass used today—spectrally selective low-E. Heating savings based on the weighted average U-value and shading coefficients for the 

installed base and new construction are 61 percent and 31 percent respectively. This 

will be even more important for the customer’s bottom line as the cost of energy 

becomes increasingly market driven. 

National energy savings are also impressive. The calculated national total energy 

savings for all market segments due to EC glazing adoptions show energy savings 

of 0.71 quads across all market sectors, which translates into total annual national 

energy cost savings of $11.5 Billion. These estimates are based on current EC technology, which is expected to improve during the marketing period. Additionally, the 

LBNL estimates do not include the use of occupancy sensors, which could substantially reduce cooling costs in the summer and heating costs in the winter simply by 

switching the EC glass to the completely darkened or clear states at the appropriate 

time. 

Although energy and energy-related costs savings are significant, additional benefits accrue from using EC technology and may even be more important. Reduced 

fading of fabrics has significant cost impacts in many installations. Glare control 

and greater thermal comfort, as well as the ability for full daylighting have been 

shown to increase worker productivity and reduce absenteeism. Ability to change 
449

building design to take advantage of more window space is a significant architectural benefit and may additionally reduce energy use as a side benefit. And the EC 

industry could easily grow to over $15 Billion. 

ADDITIONAL WORK TO BE DONE REQUIRES FURTHER INVESTMENT

The Department of Energy has supported this research and development for the 

past few years, but insufficient funding has been split among a number of players 

in the industry. Traditionally, activities have focused on development of durable 

electrochromic materials and devices for use in building applications. This has 

moved the technology so far; however, it has become clear that the industry needs 

and will cost share pre-competitive research in three areas. First, continued materials and basic component research for EC windows, which is the principal area 

funded by the DOE EC program in prior years. Second, technology and engineering 

activities focused on volume manufacturing processes for improved performance, 

yields and reliability. And third, systems engineering and applications research focused on design, specifications, installation and lifetime of the products in building 

applications. 

In Materials and Components Research and Development, near term activities 

must focus on continued optimization of the device and the individual thin film layers further improving optical performance and achieving coloration desired by architects and building owners. These advancements will be very important to maximize 

market penetration and hence the total national energy savings provided by 

electrochromic windows. Modifications to achieve more rapid switching will be required for those applications in which glare must be reduced quickly (e.g. workplaces with computer display terminals). Additionally, advanced, durable window 

controls technology must be developed that can reproducibly switch EC glazings to 

appropriate transmission states for occupant comfort and/or optimum energy savings. 

With respect to Manufacturing Technology and Engineering, future activities 

should apply basic knowledge developed from the materials and components R&D 

to design for volume production and the implementation of in-situ diagnostics for 

rapidly and automatically controlling EC window fabrication processes. Additionally, 

consensus EC window performance requirements must be developed together with 

standards setting organizations and will entail significant testing in the initial stage 

to establish the technical basis for performance requirements. Testing needs to include laboratory testing of large electrochromic windows under simulated solar irradiation and accelerated temperature conditions, and towards the end of 2003, extensive outdoor testing in which windows can be exposed to a range of real world environmental conditions. 

In Systems Engineering and Application, the DOE program must begin initial 

field trials of EC windows in occupied buildings. The first installations will have 

fairly simple controls and elicit user feedback on performance comfort level and 

other parameters. Multiple window control must be developed and demonstrated so 

we can learn how to tie the adjacent windows together for control of the overall 

space. 

In summary, SAGE Electrochromics, Inc. urges the Subcommittee to include 

$7,000,000 for the Window’s Technologies Program at DOE including $2.5 million 

for electrochromics R&D, engineering and systems integration in fiscal year 2004 Interior Appropriations. It is obvious that with continued public and private partnership, EC research will open the door for significant energy and cost savings in the 

United States. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SIEMENS WESTINGHOUSE POWER CORPORATION

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation believes that energy technology 

R&D is essential to our nation’s future and respectfully offers the following funding 

level recommendations in the fiscal year 2004 DOE Fossil Energy R&D budget for 

Interior Appropriations: 

High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET).—$24 million: to increase university-led research, strengthen advanced materials and advanced combustion research. 

Vision 21 Hybrids—Distributed Generation.—$16.5 million: to accelerate commercial applications by completing on-going fuel cell and hybrid system technology development. 
450

Innovative Systems Concepts—Distributed Generation.—$43 million to fully-fund 

on-going research for next generation, high power density stationary power fuel cell 

systems (SECA). 

Sequestration R&D.—$62 million: supporting the Administration’s request. 

—The United States has placed a high priority on developing cleaner more efficient electric power generation technologies; 

—The Administration’s 2004 budget proposal correctly recognizes the need for 

continued investments in fossil fuel R&D in order to meet the increasingly demanding environmental, siting and efficiency demands for new generation technologies; 

—New proposals now being debated in the Congress will significantly tighten environmental standards but today’s technologies are unlikely to meet these 

standards without additional R&D investments; 

—The Administration is addressing the need for advanced energy technologies 

through initiatives like the Clean Coal Power Initiative and FutureGen, as well 

as the Freedom Car and Freedom Fuels proposals. Implicit in all of these initiatives is the need to employ our extensive technology capabilities to utilize coal, 

our most abundant, dependable and least expensive energy source. As we move 

to develop emerging coal technologies like integrated gasification combined cycle 

(IGCC) and other stationary fuel cell hybrid turbine applications, advanced gas 

turbines and stationary fuel cells are certain to play key roles in the U.S. generation supply mix; 

—The National Research Council’s recent report on DOE’s Vision 21 program recommended that ‘‘additional commitments should be made to develop, design and 

test large scale turbine and fuel cell power systems that can function successfully on both synthesis gas (syngas) and hydrogen: ‘‘The full potential of these 

cleaner burning and more efficient coal-based generation technologies cannot be 

achieved without continued investments in advanced gas turbine and stationary 

fuel cell technologies’’; 

—The Administration has correctly recognized the need for continued R&D funding support for the cost shared, industry—DOE gas turbine program. This program has been refocused and renamed the High Efficiency Engines and Turbines (HEET) program but funding has remained essentially flat for several 

years while the need and program goals have increased; 

—The Administration also continued its R&D investment in stationary fuel cell 

applications but with the focus now on fuel cell transportation applications, the 

stationary fuel cell program funding needs have suffered. The proposed 2004 

funding level for stationary applications for example is $16 million less than fiscal year 2003. This is despite the widespread recognition that the development 

of stationary fuel cell applications is necessary before their success in the transportation sector is possible. Successful commercialization of stationary fuel cells 

should provide key technology building blocks that will be required for the 

transportation programs to reach the aggressive goals which have been established; 

—As a result, the Administration’s stationary fuel cell and turbine program funding commitments fall significantly short of the funding needed for these two key 

technologies if the United States is to achieve the Administration’s laudable 

commercialization objectives. 

Under the Fuel and Power Systems/Turbines budget line, Siemens Westinghouse 

Power Corp. recommends a 2004 funding level for DOE’s refocused HEET program 

of $24 million. While this level is well above the Administration’s recommendation 

of $13 million, it is conservative when compared to DOE—Stakeholder estimates 

that the program should be funded at the $240 million (i.e. $40 million a year) level 

over six years if we are to achieve the cost reductions necessary for widespread market penetration of high-efficiency coal plants. 

Under Distributed Generation/Vision 21 Hybrids we recommend a funding level 

of $16.5 million (of which $11.5 million is for continued development of the existing 

tubular SOFC program). This recommended increase is up significantly from the 

Administration’s request of $5.0 million in order to continue to achieve cost reduction goals necessary for commercial market penetration. Past funding shortfalls 

have resulted in the stationary fuel cell R&D program failing behind in its commitments and the $16.5 million funding level should enable DOE to continue progress 

toward the aggressive cost reduction targets mandated under the Vision 21 program. 

Under the Distributed Generation—Innovative Systems Concepts budget line, we 

also recommend that funding be increased to $43 million for fiscal year 2004. This 

increase is necessary just to maintain DOE’s previous program contract commitments. The Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance or SECA, which this budget line 
451

supports, holds great promise for delivering an advanced low cost solid oxide technology that will make possible smaller and more efficient fuel cells for the stationary and transportation markets. 

GAS TURBINES

The Department of Energy, in cooperation with industry, funded research and development through its Advanced Turbine Program that has made the latest generation of gas turbines, in a combined cycle configuration, almost twice as efficient as 

the existing fleet of power plants, and with significantly lower emissions. At the 

same time, natural gas turbine based generation technology can also be deployed 

with investment costs that are also among the lowest now available in the marketplace. 

The United States is in the process of committing itself to major improvements 

in both the efficiency and the emission levels of coal powered power plants under 

the Administration’s Clean Coal Power Initiative. It has also committed itself to development of the hydrogen economy through the FutureGen, FreedomCar and 

FreedomFuel programs. We can also expect that the FutureGen initiative should result in significant improvements in emission and efficiency levels for existing coal 

burning generation facilities while at the same time moving us to a new generation 

of technologies like Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC). IGCC holds the 

potential of using the United States’ vast reserves of cheap and abundant coal in 

ways that are substantially cleaner, more efficient and which will be able to sequester CO2. 

While the Administration has recognized the important role of the gas turbine in 

preserving future U.S. coal markets by including funding for the HEET program in 

its 2004 DOE R&D budget proposal, the level is significantly below the level required to develop critical advanced materials, sensors, and combustion technologies. 

In order to develop an advanced turbine suitable for use in advanced generation 

technologies such as IGCC and fuel cell hybrids that operate on natural gas or synthetic gas from coal, we recommend that the funding level be increased to $24 million. At this level we can continue the needed natural gas R&D and accelerate the 

R&D needed for synthetic coal gas applications. Our recommendation reflects the 

technology needs identified by DOE and others and is also consistent with the view 

that the program is an integral and key component of the NEP, the CCPI and 

FutureGen. This increased level of funding will also permit adequate support for the 

Cooperative University Gas Turbine Technology Research Program. This program 

has played a key role in encouraging pre-competitive basic science program participation by the university community and has been a major source of graduate level 

recruitment for the power generation industry. 

Unfortunately, today’s advanced gas turbines that use technologies developed 

under DOE’s Advanced Turbine Systems program will require major technology advances if they are to play the key roles envisions by the Administration’s initiatives 

because; 

(1) Today’s turbine technologies cannot use the coal-derived synthetic fuel gas or 

high hydrogen content gas produced by gasification technology and essential to the 

Department of Energy’s FutureGen initiative; 

(2) We do not have the materials available that will permit today’s machines to 

operate at the much higher operating temperatures that will be required and thus 

advanced materials such as ceramics will be needed; 

(3) We do not have the integrated diagnostic equipment, such as on-board sensors, 

to permit the higher levels of reliability needed in integrated systems. Thus without 

significant additional research and development in combustion science, advanced 

real time sensors and diagnostics and advanced materials we run the very real risk 

that other advanced technology components could be ready for deployment, but lack 

the key component, the advanced gas turbine. 

Without the research and development investments recommended above, the ability of the energy industry to meet the future needs of the economy with minimal 

environmental impact, could be jeopardized. With the successful resolution of these 

and similar technology questions, the United States will be able to increase its national energy security, lower consumer cost and reduce emissions. 

FUEL CELLS

Stationary fuel cell technology has advanced rapidly in recent years and is increasingly seen as the stepping stone to more distant transportation applications. 

In particular, fuel cell stationary power applications are now a technological reality 

although their costs currently limit their application to niche markets where the 

high costs can be justified. 
452

1 Current participants include Southern Company, EPRI, Kellogg Brown and Root, Siemens 

Westinghouse Power Corporation, Peabody Energy, and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe 

Railway Company. Foster Wheeler Corporation is a major past participant and Air Products and 

Chemicals, Praxair, Inc., and Pall Corporation among others have proposed significant participation in the future. In addition to the Wilsonville plant site major work is planned, or components 

for the PSDF are being developed at the following locations: Grand Forks, ND (sub-scale gasifier 

testing), Houston, TX (gasifier development); Orlando, FL (gas turbine low-NOX burner), Pittsburgh, PA (filter fabrication), Allentown, PA and Tonawanda, NY (advanced air separation technology); and DeLand, FL (filter fabrication). 

The Siemens Westinghouse Pittsburgh-based tubular solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) 

technology is at a critical pre-commercialization stage with continued pre-commercial demonstrations for product development required to assure commercial viability. The current focus on cost reduction efforts also enables a competitive technology 

which is crucial to the development of high volume manufacturing for commercialization. While the SOFC program has resulted in impressive cost reductions, additional work on advanced cell manufacturing, manufacturing assembly and fabrication technologies is critical to achieve the mandated DOE cost reduction targets. To 

date, our efforts have produced a superior technology that has demonstrated the 

longest running fuel cell of any kind, the longest running high temperature fuel cell 

system, and the world’s first high efficiency fuel cell/mircroturbine hybrid, But continued federal support is critical to achieving the program’s milestones and commitments. To achieve these additional cost reductions we recommend a fiscal year 2004 

funding level for the Vision 21 Hybrids budget line of $16.5 million. 

While the Vision 21 solid oxide fuel cell program is now nearing completion, a 

next generation of fuel cells is also under way. The Solid Energy Conversion Alliance or SECA, is being implemented under the Innovative Systems Concepts—Distributed Generation Systems budget line. SECA will take the technology lessons 

learned in the Siemens Westinghouse tubular SOFC program and apply them to a 

more advanced SOFC program designed to reduce the costs dramatically and make 

possible the widespread deployment of stationary fuel cells in stationary, military 

and transportation markets. This program holds enormous potential but at the Administration recommended level of $23.5 million, it is unlikely to achieve its goals 

in a timely fashion. We recommend therefore that the Innovative Systems Concepts 

budget line be increased to at least $43 million in order to achieve the cost reductions necessary to achieve market penetration in the time frames currently proposed 

by the program. Even at the $43 million funding level, the program would only meet 

existing SECA contract commitments. 

SEQUESTRATION R&D

The Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation supports the Administration’s re- quest for $62 million directed towards carbon sequestration. This forward-looking 

program is expected to culminate in the development of a virtually emissions-free 

generation technology. To support this goal, we have defined a concept that uses 

solid oxide fuel cell technology. The technology, known as the Zero Emission 250 

kWe SOFC combined heat and power system would enable the emissions from the 

power system to be processed in such a way that the CO2 exhaust is separated and 

captured. Support for this and other advanced sequestration technology applications 

can benefit from the Administration’s FutureGen initiative. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHERN COMPANY

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Southern Company operates the 

Power Systems Development Facility (PSDF) in Wilsonville, AL on behalf of the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) National Energy Technology Laboratory 

(NETL) and several industrial participants.1 The PSDF was conceived as the premier advanced coal power generation research and development facility in the world 

and it has fulfilled this expectation. I would like to thank this subcommittee for its 

past support for the PSDF and request its continued support. This statement is in 

support of a $13 million increase in DOE’s Coal and Power Systems budget for the 

PSDF. The current budget requests $21 million for the PSDF in fiscal year 2004; 

however, $34M is needed to conduct the research needed to support the success of 

FutureGen—The Pollution Free Power Plant of the Future—recently proposed by 

President Bush. The major accomplishments at the PSDF to-date and the future 

test program planned by DOE and the PSDF’s industrial participants are summarized below. 

A key feature of the PSDF is its ability to test new systems at an integrated, 

semi-commercial scale. Integrated operation allows the effects of system interactions 
453

2 CURC has over 40 members interested in coal-based energy systems including major universities, coal companies, railroads, electric generators, and technology suppliers. CURC members 

also include EPRI, the United Mine Workers of America, the Edison Electric Institute, the National Mining Association, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. 3 EPRI Report No. 1006954, ‘‘Market-based Valuation of Coal Generation and Coal R&D in 

the U.S. Electric Sector,’’ May 2002. 

that are typically missed in unintegrated pilot-scale testing to be understood. The 

semi-commercial scale allows the maintenance, safety, and reliability issues of a 

technology to be investigated at a cost that is an order of magnitude below the cost 

of commercial scale testing. Capable of operating at pilot to near-demonstration 

scales, the PSDF is large enough to give industry real-life data, yet small enough 

to be cost-effective and adaptable to a variety of technology research needs. 

In addition, Southern Company supports the overall $60 million increase in the 

President’s Coal Research Initiative within DOE’s Fossil Energy R&D program for 

fiscal year 2004 recommended by the Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC 2). 

The goals of the Technology Roadmap developed and supported by DOE, the Electric 

Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the CURC are achievable with funding at this 

increased level. 

The Roadmap identifies the technical, economic, and environmental performance 

that advanced clean coal technologies can achieve over the next 20 years and is included in CURC’s testimony presented before this committee. CURC believes that 

over this time period coal-fired power generation efficiency can be increased to over 

50 percent (compared to the current fleet average of ∼32 percent today) while producing de minimis emissions and developing cost-effective technology for carbon dioxide management. 

The Roadmap also identifies the R&D cost to achieve this performance. From now 

until 2010 $6.6 billion is needed and over the following decade approximately $3.5 

billion is needed—a total of $10.1 billion. About half of these funds will come from 

industry and half from the Federal government. This is a $5 billion Federal investment over the next 20 years that can be reasonably projected to return at least $300 

billion in benefits to U.S. consumers by 2050. EPRI recently used the modern financial technique called ‘‘Real Options’’ to estimate the value of advanced coal research 

and development.3 The major conclusion is that the value to U.S. consumers of further coal R&D for the period 2007–2050 is at least $360 billion and could reach 

$1.38 trillion. But, for these benefits to be realized the critically important R&D outlined in the Technology Roadmap must be conducted. 

SUMMARY

The United States has always been a leader in energy research. Given the concerns for homeland security, adequate funding for fossil energy research and development programs will provide this country with secure and reliable energy while reducing our dependence on foreign energy supplies. Current DOE fossil energy research and development programs for coal, if adequately funded, will assure that 

a wide range of electric generation technology options continue to be available for 

future needs. The choices that confront Congress when it examines the near-term 

effects of research programs on the Federal budget are difficult. However, significantly increased support for advanced coal-based energy research is essential to the 

long-term environmental and economic well being of the United States. Prior DOE 

clean coal research has already provided the basis for $100 billion in consumer benefits at a cost of less than $4 billion. Funding the Technology Roadmap beginning 

with this year’s request of $60 million above the Administration’s budget request 

for DOE coal R&D can lead to additional consumer benefits of between $360 billion 

and $1.38 trillion. 

One of the key national assets for achieving these benefits is the PSDF. The fiscal 

year 2004 funding for the PSDF needs to increase to $34 million to support construction of new technologies that are critical to the success of President Bush’s 

FutureGen program. 

PSDF ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The PSDF has developed testing and technology transfer relationships with over 

50 vendors to ensure that test results and improvements developed at the PSDF are 

incorporated into future plants by the systems suppliers. Major subsystems tested 

and some highlights of the test program at the PSDF include: 

Transport Reactor.—The Transport Reactor has been operated successfully as a 

pressurized combustor and as a gasifier in both oxygen- and air-blown modes and, 

as a result has exceeded its primary purpose of generating gases for downstream 
454

testing. It is now projected to be the lowest capital cost coal power generation option 

while also providing the lowest cost of electricity with excellent environmental performance. 

Advanced Particulate Control.—Two advanced particulate removal devices and 28 

different filter elements types have been tested to clean the product gases, and material property testing is routinely conducted to assess their suitability under longterm operation. The material requirements have been shared with vendors to aid 

their filter development programs. 

Filter Safe Guard Device.—To further enhance reliability and protect downstream 

components, a ‘‘safe guard’’ device was successfully developed that reliably and completely seals off the filter element upon filter element failure, thus preventing damage to the combustion turbine. 

Coal Feed and Ash Removal Subsystems.—The key to pressurized operation is reliable operation of the feed system to the pressurized reactor and ash removal system from the reactor and filter vessel. Modifications developed at the PSDF and 

shared with the equipment supplier allows the equipment to perform in a commercially acceptable manner. 

Syngas Cooler Testing.—Syngas cooling is of considerable importance to the gasification industry. Ferrules made of several different materials were tested at the inlet 

of the gas cooler and one ceramic material has been shown to perform well in this 

application. 

Instrumentation.—Several instrumentation vendors have worked with the PSDF 

to develop and test their instruments under realistic combustion and gasification 

conditions. 

Highly Experienced Staff.—In addition to this physical infrastructure, a highly experienced staff has been created that has a demonstrated ability to solve complex 

technical problems and rapidly move new technologies to commercial applications. 

PSDF FUTURE TEST PROGRAM

Future testing at the PSDF is intended to support FutureGen, the previously described Technology Roadmap, and the DOE Vision 21 coal initiative, which aims to 

eliminate all the environmental issues that present barriers to the continued use 

of coal. This includes major reductions in emissions of SO2, CO2, NOX, particulates, 

and trace elements (including mercury), as well as reductions in solid waste disposal 

and water consumption. The focus will remain on the commercialization of these 

new technologies as well as those currently under development at the PSDF. Assuming adequate funding the new five-year program at the PSDF is planned to include the following activities. 

Oxygen-Blown Transport Gasifier.—Continue the development of the oxygenblown Transport Gasifier to further optimize its performance, explore feedstock 

flexibility and provide syngas for testing of Vision 21 technologies and FutureGen. 

Air Separation Membranes.—Test advanced air separation membrane modules 

provided by Praxair and Air Products to evaluate membrane performance and system integration issues. 

Advanced Synthesis Gas Cleanup.—Test new advanced synthesis gas cleanup systems for hydrogen sulfide, hydrochloric acid, ammonia, and mercury removal to 

near-zero levels. 

Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Element Test Skid.—Test a solid oxide fuel cell to evaluate 

performance on coal-derived synthesis gas and identify integration issues. Combustion Turbine Burner: Integrate the existing 3.8 MW combustion turbine with a new 

synthesis gas burner developed by SWPC. 

H2/CO2 Separation Technologies.—Integrate and test advanced H2/CO2 separation 

technologies to assess performance on coal-derived synthesis gas. 

Synthesis Gas Cooler.—Test alternative designs that are less complex, have lower 

capital cost, and offer better control of the synthesis gas exit temperature. 

Cooler for Char Removal from Gasifier.—Alternatives to current screw cooler technology have been developed and will be evaluated and tested to improve reliability 

and availability. New Particulate Control Device (PCD) Internals: Evaluate alternative filter internal designs from several vendors. 

High-Temperature Valves for Char Removal from the PCD.—Original design requirements dictated high temperature char depressurization. Developments since 

startup allow substantially reduced char temperature prior to depressurization. Several higher reliability moderate temperature valves are available that need to be 

tested. 

Improved Fuel Feed Systems.—Alternatives to conventional lock hopper feed systems have been identified and will be evaluated. The results will be applicable to 

all dry-feed gasifiers. 
455

High-Temperature Heat Exchangers.—The PSDF has been identified as a suitable 

location for testing of high-temperature heat exchangers that can be used in both 

advanced combustion and IGCC technologies. 

Sensors.—Several vendors have begun testing their sensors for a variety of functions, including control of temperature and coal feed rate; detection of gaseous species, tar, and dust at low concentrations; and detection and continuous measurement of hazardous air pollutants. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Department of Energy.—Elk Hills School Lands Fund: $59 million for sixth annual 

installment of Elk Hills compensation 

Acting pursuant to Congressional mandate, and in order to maximize the revenues for the Federal taxpayer from the sale of the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve by removing the cloud of the State of California’s claims, the Federal Government reached a settlement with the State in advance of the sale. The State waived 

its rights to the Reserve in exchange for fair compensation in installments stretched 

out over an extended period of time. 

Following the settlement, the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve went forward without 

the cloud of the State’s claims and produced a winning bid of $3.65 billion, far beyond most expectations. Under the settlement between the Federal Government and 

the State, the State is to receive compensation for its claims in annual installments 

over 7 years without interest. Each annual installment of compensation is subject 

to a Congressional appropriation. In each of the past 5 fiscal years (fiscal years 

1999–2003), Congress has appropriated the funds necessary to pay the $36 million 

installment of compensation due for that year. 

Congress should appropriate for fiscal year 2004 the $59 million due as the sixth 

annual installment payment of compensation under the settlement that Congress directed the Administration to achieve. 

The Elk Hills appropriation has the broad bipartisan support of the California 

Congressional delegation. Senator Feinstein is the lead Senate sponsor. On the 

House side, the California House delegation has sent a letter signed by the entire 

delegation to the Chairman of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee 

strongly supporting the $59 million appropriation for fiscal year 2004. 

BACKGROUND

Upon admission to the Union, States beginning with Ohio and those westward 

were granted by Congress certain sections of public land located within the State’s 

borders. This was done to compensate these States having large amounts of public 

lands within their borders for revenues lost from the inability to tax public lands 

as well as to support public education. Two of the tracts of State school lands granted by Congress to California at the time of its admission to the Union were located 

in what later became the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve. 

The State of California applies the revenues from its State school lands to assist 

retired teachers whose pensions have been most seriously eroded by inflation. California teachers are ineligible for Social Security and often must rely on this State 

pension as the principal source of retirement income. Typically the retirees receiving 

these State school lands revenues are single women more than 75 years old whose 

relatively modest pensions have lost as much as half or more of their original value 

to inflation. 

CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTION TO SETTLE THE STATE’S CLAIMS

In the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996 (Public Law 104–

106) that mandated the sale of the Elk Hills Reserve to private industry, Congress 

reserved 9 percent of the net sales proceeds in an escrow fund to provide compensation to California for its claims to the State school lands located in the Reserve. 

In addition, in the Act Congress directed the Secretary of Energy on behalf of the 

Federal Government to ‘‘offer to settle all claims of the State of California . . . in 

order to provide proper compensation for the State’s claims.’’ (Public Law 104–106, 

§ 3415). The Secretary was required by Congress to ‘‘base the amount of the offered 

settlement payment from the contingent fund on the fair value for the State’s 

claims, including the mineral estate, not to exceed the amount reserved in the contingent fund.’’ (Id.) 
456

SETTLEMENT REACHED THAT IS FAIR TO BOTH SIDES

Over the course of the year that followed enactment of the Defense Authorization 

Act mandating the sale of Elk Hills, the Federal Government and the State engaged 

in vigorous and extended negotiations over a possible settlement. Finally, on October 10, 1996 a settlement was reached, and a written Settlement Agreement was 

entered into between the United States and the State, signed by the Secretary of 

Energy and the Governor of California. 

The Settlement Agreement is fair to both sides, providing proper compensation to 

the State and its teachers for their State school lands and enabling the Federal Government to maximize the sales revenues realized for the Federal taxpayer by removing the threat of the State’s claims in advance of the sale. 

FEDERAL REVENUES MAXIMIZED BY REMOVING CLOUD OF STATE’S CLAIM IN ADVANCE

OF THE SALE

The State entered into a binding waiver of rights against the purchaser in advance of the bidding for Elk Hills by private purchasers, thereby removing the cloud 

over title being offered to the purchaser, prohibiting the State from enjoining or otherwise interfering with the sale, and removing the purchaser’s exposure to treble 

damages for conversion under State law. In addition, the State waived equitable 

claims to revenues from production for periods prior to the sale. The Reserve thereafter was sold for a winning bid of $3.65 billion in cash, a sales 

price that substantially exceeded earlier estimates. 

PROPER COMPENSATION FOR THE STATE’S CLAIMS AS CONGRESS DIRECTED

In exchange for the State’s waiver of rights to Elk Hills to permit the sale to proceed, the Settlement Agreement provides the State and its teachers with proper 

compensation for the fair value of the State’s claims, as Congress had directed in 

the Defense Authorization Act. 

While the Federal Government received the Elk Hills sales proceeds in a cash 

lump sum at closing of the sale in February, 1998, the State agreed to accept compensation in installments stretched out over an extended period of 7 years without 

interest. This represented a substantial concession by the State. Congress had reserved 9 percent of sales proceeds for compensating the State. The school lands 

owned by the State had been estimated by the Federal Government to constitute 

8.2 to 9.2 percent of the total value of the Reserve. By comparison, the present value 

of the stretched out compensation payments to the State has been determined by 

the Federal Government to represent only 6.4 percent of the sales proceeds, since 

the State agreed to defer receipt of the compensation over a 7-year period and will 

receive no interest on the deferred payments. 

Accordingly, under the Settlement Agreement the Federal Government is obligated to pay to the State as compensation, subject to an appropriation, annual installments of $36 million in each of the first 5 years (fiscal years 1999–2003) and 

the balance of the amount due split evenly between years 6 and 7 (fiscal years 

2004–2005). 

THE MONEY IS THERE TO PAY THE STATE

The funds necessary to compensate the State have been collected from the sales 

proceeds remitted by the private purchaser of Elk Hills and are now being held in 

the Elk Hills School Lands Fund for the express purpose of compensating the State. 

Congress has appropriated the funds necessary for each of the previous five annual installments of Elk Hills compensation. 

THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE SIXTH ANNUAL

INSTALLMENT OF ELK HILLS COMPENSATION

Following payment of the fifth installment of Elk Hills compensation for fiscal 

year 2003 (funds having been appropriated for payment on October 1, 2003), the 

State is owed approximately $144 million under the Settlement Agreement between 

the Federal Government and the State. The exact final amount of compensation is 

subject to finalization of the respective equity interests of the Federal Government 

and Chevron, the co-owners of the Elk Hills field prior to the sale. In accordance 

with the Settlement Agreement, the Administration as part of the fiscal year 2000 

budget held back $26 million from the State’s share of the Elk Hills sales proceeds 

deposited in the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, to provide for any potential downward adjustment in the Federal Government’s equity interest. This equity determination process still is being completed, some 6 years after the sale. The State is 

entitled to return of this $26 million ‘‘hold-back’’ if the final equity determination 
457

leaves the Federal Government’s equity interest unchanged. (If the Federal Government’s share is increased, the State is entitled to return of the holdback as well as 

9 percent of the increase.) The balance of the Elk Hills School Lands Fund currently stands at $118 million, after subtracting this $26 million ‘‘hold-back’’. Under the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement, for the sixth installment of Elk Hills compensation due for fiscal year 

2004 the State is entitled to half of the balance of the Elk Hills School Lands Fund 

that remains after the holdback. Thus, the State is entitled to $59 million for the 

sixth installment. (The remainder of the State’s 9 percent share of the Elk Hills 

sales proceeds is due in the subsequent, seventh annual installment.) For fiscal year 2004, the Administration has requested an appropriation of $36 

million as ‘‘a placeholder for half of the estimated balance for years six and seven 

as required by the settlement agreement until final equity finalization [sic.] is complete.’’ (February 2003 Budget Highlights for the Department of Energy Fiscal Year 

2004 Congressional Budget Request, at p. 98). See Budget of the United States Government—Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix, at p. 383–384. The Administration’s budget 

request in effect calls for a second ‘‘hold-back’’ that is contrary to the terms of the 

Settlement Agreement. The State respectfully requests appropriation of the full $59 million that it is due 

for fiscal year 2004 as the sixth installment of compensation under the terms of its 

Settlement Agreement with the Federal Government. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES ADVANCED CERAMICS ASSOCIATION

The United States Advanced Ceramics Association (USACA) is a Washingtonbased association of major producers and users of advanced ceramic products. 

USACA is the premier association that champions the common business interests 

of the advanced ceramic producer and end-user industries. 

USACA appreciates the opportunity to provide the United States Senate Appropriations Committee, Interior Subcommittee with our industry’s statement regarding the fiscal year 2004 Department of Energy (DOE) budget request for 

FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, Distributed Energy and Electricity Reliability, Industrial Technologies, and Coal Research Initiatives in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and the Office of Fossil Energy (FE). 

USACA Recommends increased Funding for: 

—$41.7 million.—Materials technologies (freedomcar and vehicle technologies), in- crease of $2.1M —$23.0 million.—Turbines (coal research, central systems), increase of $10M —$43.0 million.—Fuel cells (distributed generation systems, SECA), increase of 

$19.5M 

—$16.5 million.—Fuel cells (distributed generation systems, vision 21 hybrids), 

increase of $11.5M 

USACA Supports the Administration’s Request for: 

—$10.7 million.—Heavy vehicle systems (freedomcar and vehicle technologies) 

—$37.1 million.—Advanced combustion engines (freedomcar and vehicle technologies) 

—$31.9 million.—Distributed generation technology development (distributed energy and electricity reliability) 

—$12.7 million.—Industrial materials for the future (industrial technologies) 

—$12.0 million.—Materials (coal research initiative, advanced research program) 

USACA has a long-standing commitment to promoting the use of advanced ceramics as the foundation for a new generation of high-efficiency and high-performance 

products for surface transportation, aerospace, defense, energy, and industrial applications. In order to maintain U.S. competitiveness in key areas, increased focus of 

programs in advanced materials is needed, with joint programs and continuation of 

the interagency coordination committee recommended for promoting transfer of 

knowledge at reduced cost. 

USACA supports Department of Energy (DOE) programs in distributed power 

generation, hydrogen, fuel cells, vehicle technologies, industrial technologies and 

coal research, which will lead our country on a path to energy independence and 

infrastructure assurance. 

FREEDOMCAR AND VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES

USACA supports an increase over the budget request from $39.6M to $41.7M in 

this program to provide full funding for the High Temperature Materials Laboratory 

(HTML). This funding increase for the HTML from $4.0M to $6.1M, representing 

a $0.5M increase over fiscal year 2003, would support necessary research and devel-
458

opment of advanced structural, propulsion, and catalyst materials for heavy vehicle 

and automotive applications which may enable significant fuel cell cost reductions. 

Under Materials Technologies, USACA supports the administration request for Propulsion Materials Technology ($8.9M) and Lightweight Materials Technology 

($26.8M). 

High Temperature Materials Lab (HTML) [EE0703].—Over the past 15 to 20 

years, the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory High Temperature Materials Lab, 

in conjunction with scientists in the ORNL Metals and Ceramics Division, have 

been at the forefront of advanced materials R&D. The HTML, through its collaborative programs with industry, national labs and universities has, in our opinion, 

done the most of any government program in expanding the state of the art of advanced materials. The U.S. ceramics industry enjoys a technological leadership position in part due to these programs. Materials technology, as a direct result of ORNL 

programs, such as Ceramic Technology Project, and HTML, now has the potential 

to be successfully incorporated in power, transportation and industrial technologies, 

as well as other commercial and military applications. 

We wish to emphasize the importance of the High Temperature Materials Laboratory, which through its research staff, user center, and fellowship programs, has 

provided cost-effective but critical support for materials development in energy intensive markets. The world-class materials research facilities at HTML have been 

particularly vital to assisting small businesses be competitive and technologically innovative. The HTML continues to expand our understanding of high temperature 

materials, vital for improving efficiencies in transportation, industrial and power 

generation systems. 

DISTRIBUTED ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY RELIABILITY

The electrical power generation and distribution industry is vulnerable to threats 

to the Nation’s energy security. Distributed generation technologies provide opportunity for energy infrastructure assurance. In addition, energy efficiency in both 

production and end use is becoming more critical to maintaining a growing national 

economy. Past and continuing technology advances in materials have contributed to 

the production of improved technologies for energy efficiency. One example of this 

is DOE EERE Advanced Microturbine Systems, providing distributed power generation typically 30 kW to 1,000 kW. Microturbines are capable of producing electricity 

more cost effectively at the customer site than the delivered cost of the central station. Advanced microturbine designs, using ceramic components that can operated 

at hundreds of degrees hotter than metal components, would theoretically boost efficiency from about 25 percent to over 40 percent. Further efficiency improvements 

are possible utilizing advanced materials concepts in technologies such as fuel cell 

hybrid systems. Solid oxide fuel cell systems, in particular, will be dependent on advanced ceramics to realize extraordinary power generation efficiencies utilizing high 

temperature fuel cell/microturbine hybrids. In addition, advanced materials may 

provide solutions to improve catalysts and hydrogen storage performance. 

Currently, gas turbine power is the most fuel-efficient, cleanest, and consumer 

friendly way to generate electricity. Combined cycle gas turbines provide the highest 

efficiency and lowest emissions of all combustion generation technology available 

today (producing twice as much electricity and less than half the CO2 as compared 

to existing non-gas-turbine power plants). Turbine systems are cost effective, and 

can be quickly deployed to meet the country’s growing energy needs. The gas turbine industry is currently manufacturing and installing these high-tech power 

plants across the United States to reduce the cost of electricity, create new jobs, and 

stimulate investment to support economic development. 

However, America’s new energy policy goals require dramatic new technology development. The vision of a modern, secure U.S. power generation infrastructure that 

runs on domestic fuels without harming the environment is achievable, if the Federal government makes a sufficient investment in DOE/industry turbine partnership 

programs. USACA believes the above funding levels are necessary if our nation intends to realize the public benefits envisioned in our national energy policy. 

DOE showed exceptional initiative and foresight in identifying the opportunity for 

advanced high temperature materials to improve efficiency in turbines, microturbines, and fuel cells. We would like to work with DOE to include greater opportunities for advanced materials research and development in these important programs. 

The United States is committed to reducing reliance on imported oil. Therefore a 

diverse energy infrastructure is needed. Program goals in the areas of turbines, 

microturbines, and fuel cells all seek to contribute to a diverse domestic energy portfolio. Research and development in advanced materials is necessary in order to im-
459

prove performance, reduce weight, extend equipment life, decrease emissions, increase specific power, and decrease fuel use. 

INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS FOR THE FUTURE

The Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) Industries of the Future (IOF) process 

has shown that improved materials are a crosscutting need of many industries and 

one of the keys to cleaner, more energy-efficient and productive manufacturing. The 

mission of the DOE Industrial Materials for the Future Program is to lead a national effort to research, design, engineer, and test new and improved materials, as 

well as more profitable uses of existing materials for the Industries of the Future 

(IOF). Through this program, significant advances have been made in a broad range 

of advanced materials including ceramics and ceramic matrix composites, in addition to advances made in materials for the Industries of the Future. These same 

materials have in many cases supported development efforts in gas turbines, fuel 

cells, reciprocating engines, and vehicle technologies. While the successful application of ceramic materials to industrial applications continues to be limited by their 

high cost, continued support of the Industrial Materials for the Future program is 

requested to insure that price-performance targets are ultimately met. 

COAL RESEARCH INITIATIVES—HIGH EFFICIENCY ENGINES, TURBINES AND FUEL CELLS

The DOE HEET Program is critical to the President’s National Energy Policy 

(NEP) Clean Coal Technology goal of ‘‘low-cost, zero emission power plants with efficiencies close to double that of today’s fleet’’. The DOE/industry HEET partnership 

will make it possible for power generation equipment manufacturers, as well as systems developers, owners and operators to create the core technology solutions necessary to overcome the complex challenges identified in the NEP report. The HEET 

Program turbine system efficiency goal is 60 percent for coal-based systems, and 

HEET turbo fuel cell hybrid systems that offer the potential for unprecedented efficiencies (in excess of 80 percent). The HEET near-zero emission environmental goal 

translates into systems with no carbon, and negligible NOX, SO2, and trace contaminants. The program is also targeting a 15 percent reduction life-cycle cost of electricity generated by gas turbine power plants. 

Federal cost sharing is needed to enable successful development technology improvements envisioned under the HEET, and to expedite commercialization of these 

systems. A $23.0 Million federal contribution to the HEET program in fiscal year 

2004 will have a direct impact on the fuel-efficiency, fuel flexibility and emissions 

levels of America’s coal and natural gas fired power plants. Our nation’s investment 

in the HEET program will allow the United States to continue to serve as the 

world’s principal source for clean turbine power generation systems. Added funding 

is required beyond the Administration’s request to fund an Advanced Materials Initiative, with advanced ceramics components likely to be the key enabling technology 

needed to meet NEP goals. As the leading developer and producer of these clean, 

fossil-fueled power technologies, the United States can remain the leader of the 

international effort to lower global power plant emissions levels through technology 

innovation. Gas turbine equipment manufacturers, as well as systems developers, 

owners and operators have already indicated strong interest in working with DOE 

to help reach the HEET program goals. Now, Congress needs to ensure there is adequate fiscal year 2004 federal funding ($23 million) to facilitate a government/industry partnership that successfully allows new HEET technologies to mature in a 

timely manner. 

Fuel cells hold the potential for clean, efficient energy production for both transportation and stationary power applications. While the Administration has recognized their potential and increased funding focused on transportation applications, 

near term electric power generation fuel cell programs have seen decreases in research funding. USACA recommends increasing overall fuel cell funding to $43 million. Added funding is needed to fully-fund on-going research for next generation, 

high power density stationary power fuel cell systems (SECA), with advanced ceramics research critical to their success. DOE has identified turbine-fuel cell hybrid 

systems as a key enabling technology for Vision21 Power Systems. USACA recommends increasing Vision21 fuel cell hybrids funding to $16 million. Added funding will accelerate integration of fuel cell and turbine systems and meeting existing 

obligations to industry cost-shared programs. 

The HEET program, combined with DOE fuel cell program efforts, will lead to the 

required cost reductions needed to ensure the commercial viability of these hybrid 

systems. Gas turbine research is necessary to enable the technology to meet the 

pressure ratios, mass flows, and other critical operating and performance param-
460

eters of high-temperature fuel cells. Ultimately, the program will culminate with the 

testing a near-commercial-scale multi MW Vision21 coal-fired hybrid power system. 

PUBLIC BENEFITS

DOE gas turbine R&D Programs stimulate economic growth, clean up the environment, and ensure that the United States has a reliable supply of power. Implementation of the next generation of advanced turbine technology R&D programs will 

accelerate U.S. market restructuring and environmental goals. Armed with new advanced gas turbine systems, the U.S. power supply industry will provide America 

with the following benefits: 

Reliable Power 

The United States can have technologies that can operate better in the dynamic 

restructured market including technologies able to perform ‘‘just-in-time’’ dispatch 

without operational or environmental penalties. This translates into improved power 

quality and fewer disruptions in power supply. Distributed generation technologies 

such as microturbines and fuel cells greatly increases energy security. 

Economic Strength through Improved Power Systems 

Development and accelerated deployment of advanced turbine power technologies 

will reduce the cost of electricity, create new jobs, and stimulate investment to support U.S. economic development. The expertise American manufacturers gain in producing these sophisticated technologies positions our companies for success in growing international power generation markets. 

Meet Mounting Demand for Increased Power Production Capacity 

United States demand for electrical power is expected to increase by nearly 35 

percent over the next 20 years. Manufacturing and information technology businesses require reliable power generation, thus dictating the need for DOE’s next 

generation of R&D programs to develop state-of-the-art gas turbines for reliable, 

low-cost electricity. 

A Cleaner Environment 

DOE gas turbine programs provide a cost-effective solution for clean power. Advanced gas turbine technologies developed through DOE programs have much higher efficiencies and lower emissions than competing combustion power systems. 

Replace Environmentally Deficient, Aging Power Plants 

In today’s market, only revolutionary, advanced gas turbine technologies provide 

the economic advantages needed to trigger the accelerated retirement of inefficient, 

environmentally challenged base-load power plants. 

For further information, please contact Karen Miller, Executive Director, the 

United States Advanced Ceramics Association (USACA) at 202–293–6253, or by Email at kmiller@ttcorp.com. 

USACA MEMBERS

Amercom/Synterials, Inc; Ceracom, Inc.; COI Ceramics, Inc.; Deere & Company; 

General Electric Company; UT Battelle, LLC; Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, 

Inc.; Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALASKA NATIVE HEALTH BOARD

The Alaska Native Health Board (ANHB) submits this statement on the fiscal 

year 2004 Indian Health Service budget. Our fiscal year 2004 Federal Legislative 

Priorities paper which we gave to the Subcommittees provides more detail than we 

can include in this four-page testimony. In summary, our fiscal year 2004 IHS budget recommendations are: 

—Community Health Aide Practitioner Program—a $7.4 million increase 

—Stop the erosion of the IHS budget by fully funding mandatory increases including pay costs, inflation, and population growth ($360 million) 

—Staffing packages for the health centers at St. Paul ($1.4 million), Metlakatla 

($2.5 million), and King Cove ($1.5 million) 

—Funding to complete construction of the health centers at St. Paul and 

Metlakatla and the Bethel quarters 

—Funding for the Barrow Hospital planning and site acquisition ($8 million) and 

for beginning funding for replacement of the Nome Hospital 
461

—Medevac transportation in Alaska—a $2 million increase 

—Patient travel in Alaska—a $2 million increase 

—Increase funding for Contract Health Services 

—Fully fund contract support costs—$60 million increase 

—Support $20 million increase for Sanitation Facilities 

—Distribute the Special Diabetes Program for Indians program via the existing 

formula 

Community Health Aide Practitioner Program.—We request a $7.4 million increase for the CHA/P program to be phased in over a 3-year period. CHA/P provides 

emergency and primary health care for 80,000 Alaska Natives. We request $5 million to increase the number of CHAP positions by 115 FTE’s, for a total of 615; $1.5 

million to increase the number of field supervisors; $750,000 to increase state-wide 

CHA/P training capacity; $150,000 for ongoing updates of materials specific to the 

CHA/P. 

Stop the Erosion of the IHS Budget.—Year after year the IHS budget is eroded 

by the lack of funding to fully meet built-in cost increases, and the Administration’s 

fiscal year 2004 proposal for the IHS is particularly deficient in this area. As evidence of this, the IHS projects that its fiscal year 2004 budget proposal would result 

in 367,000 less patient visits in fiscal year 2004 than in fiscal year 2003 (IHS Budget, page 29). 

The proposal for the IHS Services account is only one percent over the fiscal year 

2003 enacted level. This represents a significant erosion of IHS buying power as 

there is inadequate funding for inflation, population growth and pay raises. Some 

of that one percent ‘‘increase’’ is in fact the $50 million increase in diabetes entitlement funding and a projected $7 million increase in third party payments. Given 

the reductions states are making in the Medicaid program, we are concerned about 

tribal Medicaid collection going down, and are surprised at the projected increase 

in collections. 

According to the IHS budget document, tribes and IHS will have to absorb $114 

million in built-in costs in fiscal year 2004. This is only part of the story. The Administration requested only a 2 percent pay raise for civilian employees, even 

though it is expected that Congress will approve 4.1 percent pay raise. We appreciate that the fiscal year 2004 House and Senate budget resolutions support giving 

civilian employees the same level of pay raise as is scheduled for military employees 

and urge the Subcommittee to provide funding to fully meet pay raise and other 

built-in costs. 

We also appreciate the Senate approving an amendment recommending a $292 

million increase in the IHS budget, but that should be viewed as a minimum increase. Just to keep IHS Services at their current level would require approximately 

$360 million increase (inflation, pay costs, population growth, staffing for new facilities). 

Medevac Funding.—We request $2 million in recurring appropriations through 

the IHS for Alaska Native tribal health organizations to meet the escalating costs 

resulting from FAA requirements for the use of critical care air ambulance services 

for medical evacuations. This service is critical to the delivery of health care in Alaska. As evidence of that, the Alaska medevac planes were the first medevac services 

in the nation allowed to resume service following the terrorist attacks of September 

11, 2001. 

In recent years the cost and number of medevac flights have continued to rise. 

The Alaska Native Medical Center, for instance, has seen a 30 percent increase in 

the number of medevac flights in the past four years. During that time the costs 

increased five fold. A major factor has been changes in the FAA requirements regarding use of critical care air ambulance services for medical evacuations. In many 

cases now only critical care air services that meet new FAA requirements may 

transport patients that historically have been arranged on other aircraft (e.g., transport of patients on oxygen). 

Other Patient Travel.—Funding for patient travel is a critical component of health 

care in Alaska. Individual inability to pay for the cost of patient travel, including 

land, transportation, food and lodging results in persons deferring health care. That, 

in turn, leads to more severe compilations that ultimately result in increased cost 

of providing health care. A roundtrip ticket to Anchorage can cost as much as $1,600 

from some communities. People may have to make the decision between health care 

or food, fuel and other basic necessities. We request $2 million in recurring funding 

for patient travel in Alaska. 

Facilities at St. Paul, Metlakatla, Barrow, Bethel and Nome 

St. Paul Health Center.—Congress appropriated $5.5 million in fiscal year 2003 

for partial construction of the St. Paul Health Center—the Administration had re-
462

quested $11 million in fiscal year 2003 to complete construction. We ask that Congress provide the remaining amount necessary to complete construction. The present 

clinic has many documented physical and environmental deficiencies and is much 

too small to adequately serve the Native and non-Native population. While the clinic 

serves the approximately 900 permanent residents of St. Paul Island, it also is the 

sole source provider of health services to 3,000 fishermen during fishing and crabbing seasons. The health clinic is not handicapped-accessible, and hallways and 

doors are very narrow. There are only two examination rooms. Due to lack of examination space, treatment of patients must also be provided in hallways and in the 

x-ray room. There is little privacy for patients, and patient confidentiality is difficult. 

Metlakatla Indian Community Health Center.—Congress appropriated $306,000 in 

fiscal year 2003 for construction of the health center for the Metlakatla Indian Community and it also directed that an additional $5 million be made available for this 

health center from savings from completed health care facilities. We ask Congress 

to appropriate the necessary amount in fiscal year 2004 to complete construction of 

the Metlakatla clinic and associated quarters. 

Clinic services are currently housed in four modular units that were built in the 

1970’s. The units are set on pilings and are connected by open, elevated, wooden 

walkways. The buildings have settled unevenly, posing an unsafe environment for 

people seeking health services. They continue to re-settle, particularly when freezing 

and thawing occurs, resulting in cracked walls and other damage. There is an ongoing, and losing, effort to do emergency repairs. Additionally, the facilities are overcrowded and the utility systems are inadequate to support the modernization or updating of medical equipment. Barrow Hospital (Arctic Slope Native Association) ($8 million).—We request $8 

million in fiscal year 2004 funding for the Planning and Site Acquisition phase of 

the project to replace the Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital (SSMH) in Barrow. 

This critical facility is the only hospital available to residents of an area larger than 

the State of Washington. The single story wood frame building was constructed in 

1965 and most of the major systems in the building are the original equipment. It 

was designed to meet the requirements of a much smaller population and now provides less than 25 percent of the space needed to provide appropriate medical care 

for the current population. 

The IHS approved the Project Justification Document and a draft Program of Re- quirements for this project in 1998. The Barrow project would cost $104 million 

when complete and is currently the fourth priority for inpatient facility construction 

on the IHS priority list. 

Nome Hospital (Norton Sound Health Corporation).—We urge Congress to move 

forward to advance the projects on the outpatient priority list so that the critical 

need for an inpatient facility in Nome can be proceed. The Nome Hospital is fifth 

on the IHS outpatient priority list—the uncertainty with regard to the plans for the 

facility in Phoenix has unfairly delayed getting IHS funding for the Nome facility 

and perhaps others who are just below Phoenix on the priority list. 

There is an urgent need for replacement or renovation/expansion of the severely 

overcrowded Norton Sound Regional Hospital. Originally constructed in 1948 and 

since expanded, the hospital is filled with code violations and safety deficiencies 

which include unsafe wiring and plumbing, lack of fire sprinkler system, inadequate 

ventilation, and structural problems due to foundation movement 

Bethel Quarters.—We request $5 million for the last year of a four-year quarters 

construction project. 

Staffing Packages for St. Paul Health Center, Metlakatla Health Center, and King 

Cove Clinic.—We urge funding for staffing packages for new facilities at St. Paul 

($1.4 million), Metlakatla ($2.5 million) and King Cove ($1.5 million). Detailed information on these staffing needs have been supplied to the IHS. 

Rural Sanitation Funding.—We give special thanks to Secretary Thompson for his 

support for increasing the IHS sanitation construction budget by $20 million, for a 

total of $114 million. We believe that the Secretary’s visit to rural Alaska was instrumental in his decision to support this increase. 

The IHS estimates that it would cost $960 million to meet the current sanitation 

needs of Alaska Native villages. The future, however, holds challenge as well as 

promise. For example, providing water and sewer service to the last 16 percent of 

households will be particularly difficult. In some communities, sources capable of 

producing even a modest supply of water are not available. In very small communities, it is hard to overcome diseconomies of scale to make water and sewage service affordable. 

Resources to support technical, financial, and managerial capacity necessary to 

operate the systems on an ongoing basis have not been proportionately increased. 
463

Many of the villages with water sanitation projects in place or under construction 

lack the financial resources to ensure their long-term operation and maintenance. 

With a limited economic base to pay for user fees, higher costs of shipping and 

transportation to contend with, and harsh climates and geology, among other mitigating factors, support for operation and maintenance is critical to assuring longterm success of village sanitation projects. 

Contract Support Costs.—The Administration has proposed no increase for IHS 

contract support costs, even though it is expected that new contracts will be entered 

into during fiscal year 2004. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, in its March 

11, 2003, letter to the Budget Committee, reports that 25 new or expanded contracts 

are expected during fiscal year 2004. The estimated unmet contract support costs 

in fiscal year 2003 was approximately $60 million. We believe that there is a federal 

obligation to funds these costs. 

Diabetes.—We thank Congress for reauthorizing the Special Diabetes Program for 

Native Americans and Alaska Natives last year. Funding for this program will be 

$150 million, a $50 million increase over the current year. We ask that IHS not 

award the new $50 million competitively, but rather that there be consultation with 

tribes about the use of these funds. Tribes individually need more diabetes funds 

and we would not want to see to entire $50 million distributed outside the formula. 

We point out that Alaska has the highest rate of increase in new diabetes cases in 

Indian country. The rate of diabetes cases in the Mt. Edgecumbe Service Unit increased 81 percent from 1985–1999 (from 22 to 49 per 1,000). 

HHS Consolidation and Reallocation Proposals.—We appreciate that Congress rejected in the fiscal year 2003 Appropriations Act the HHS proposals to consolidate 

maintenance and construction funds, and legislative and public affairs within the 

office of the HHS Secretary. The fiscal year 2003 Conference Report for the IHS 

budget specifically requires that HHS proposals to consolidate or realign functions 

that affect the IHS be implemented through a reprogramming request approved by 

the Appropriations Committees. Should the Administration push these ‘‘one HHS 

proposals’’ during fiscal year 2004, we urge that they be rejected as they were in 

fiscal year 2003. 

Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

Halito [Hello] from the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to the distinguished Members of this Subcommittee and yakoke [thank you] for accepting this written statement prepared by the Tribal Members on the Choctaw Reservation in Durant, Oklahoma. 

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for the 

military personnel who are away from home and their loved ones. On behalf of my 

People, I pray that they will have a safe and expedient return to their families and 

to their Homeland. 

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is requesting this Subcommittee consider the 

following funding priorities in the fiscal year 2004 Budgets for the Indian Health 

Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

The BIA and IHS are preparing to re-organize. We are concerned that this will 

come at the expense of diminishing tribal programs and the delivery of tribal services. Therefore, we ask that the Subcommittee include language directing both the 

BIA and IHS not to reduce funds appropriated by this Subcommittee to offset Departmental or agency shortfalls, to support reorganization plans, or trust reform initiatives without consulting with Tribal Leadership. This language should be included in future appropriations bills for these agencies; 

—Provide $98 million for IHS to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC); 

—Restore $4.5 million the Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Tribal Self-Governance; 

—Provide $360 million for IHS mandatory, inflation and population growth increase to maintain existing health care services; 

—Support the President’s budget request for $50 million increase in the Special 

Diabetes Program for Indians. 

JUSTIFICATION

1. $98 million is needed in IHS and an additional $5 million increase is needed 

in BIA to fully fund CSC. This shortfall continues to penalize Tribes that elect to 
464

operate BIA and IHS programs under the self-determination policy. Further, this 

shortfall threatens to pit tribe against tribe as mature contractors are asked to absorb all inflationary increases in order to fund new contractors. Additional CSC appropriations are needed to implement the self-determination and self-governance 

policy as supported by Congress. We urge the Subcommittee to fully fund CSC for 

Tribes similar to how other contractors are funded within the federal government. 2. In fiscal year 2003, a total of $4.2 million was eliminated from the Office of 

Tribal Self-Governance within the IHS budget. We believe that this decrease will 

severely impact IHS’s ability to fully implement the provisions of Title V of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended. The IHS Office 

of Tribal Self-Governance was established in 1996 to advocate and implement the 

Self-Governance initiative within IHS. There are currently 285 Tribes (51.1 percent 

of all federally-recognized Tribes) implementing Self-Governance agreements. While 

the number of Self-Governance Tribes has and continues to increase, the staff and 

organizational capacity of OTSG has not. Additional funding is needed to increase 

the OTSG’s organizational capacity to meet the legal requirements of Title V and 

to protect and advance the Self-Governance initiative. 

3. The Administration’s request of $40 million in fiscal year 2004 is far short of 

the $360 million needed just to maintain current health care services. These costs 

are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay costs and staff for 

recently constructed facilities. IHS and Tribal programs simply cannot afford to continue to lose real resources. Mandatories should be the first consideration in budget 

formulation. If unfunded, these cost increases will result in further health service 

reductions in our Tribal communities. 

4. As a result of the special Diabetes Program, today there are over 300 diabetes 

prevention and treatment programs serving American Indians and Alaskan Natives. 

The funding has allowed Tribal governments to develop and improve wellness centers, establish education programs, and all other activities. It is not only an effective 

tool in preventing and treating diabetes, but it also provides opportunities to reduce 

the incidence of diabetes related blindness, amputations and end stage renal disease. We ask that the increase in funding for the Special Diabetes Program does 

not come at the expense of other vitally important Indian health services. 

Yakoke! 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF ANNETTE ISLANDS RESERVE, METLAKATLA

INDIAN COMMUNITY

We are writing to you to bring to your attention, once again, our needs with respect to the fiscal year 2004 appropriations. 

—$14,511,000 in IHS funds to complete construction of a health clinic and quarters and $2.5 million in health clinic staffing. 

—Increased funding for the Alaska Community health aide program, Alaska 

Medevac services and full funding for IHS contract support. 

—$6,000,000 in BIA funds for continuation of the Walden Point Road project. 

Health Clinic, Quarters and Staffing.—We are especially concerned that sufficient 

funding is included in the fiscal year 2004 appropriations to the Indian Health Service facilities account to complete the proposed new Annette Islands Service unit clinic. As you are aware the present clinic is housed in obsolete modular units which 

are crowded and deteriorating. Construction of the new clinic project has begun with 

funding provided in fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 2003 Congress appropriated 

$306,000 and directed IHS to apply $5 million in savings from other projects to proceed with the clinic on our reservation. We should, therefore, be in a position to 

complete construction with funding to be provided in fiscal year 2004. 

The Administration has requested $14,511,000 for completion of the clinic and 

eight units of staff quarters in fiscal year 2004. We support this request. We understand that IHS has carried out the instruction of the Congress to make available 

$5,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 funds for clinic construction. Thus the appropriation 

for fiscal year 2004 can be appropriately adjusted. We also request an appropriation 

of $2.5 million to support an increase in staffing of 31 positions. We greatly appreciate the support of your Committee and the Congress for this vital health care 

project. 

Special Health Program Needs in Alaska.—We also support the request of the 

Alaska Native Health Board for a $7.4 million increase to be phased in over three 

years to increase the Community Health Aide program in Alaska and we support 

full funding for the Indian Health Service to cover all built in increases in costs and 

to keep services at least at their current level. We understand that this would require an increase of $360,000,000. 
465

We urge that Congress provide a $2,000,000 increase to cover the special need for 

medevac services in Alaska. This is important especially for insular locations such 

as ours on Annette Island where we have no hospital facilities. 

We are concerned that the Administration has requested no additional funding for 

contract support to enable an estimated 25 new tribal contracts and self-governance 

agreements to be award in 2004, without diminishing contract support funding 

available for existing self-governance health services programs like ours. We support 

full funding for contract support. 

We urge that in appropriating additional funding for the special diabetes program 

the Congress require the Indian Health Service to take account of the relative incidence of diabetes in its various regions and consult with tribes on the appropriate 

manner of distribution. Our own incidence of diabetes here at Metlakatla is very 

high. 

Walden Point Road.—Under a Memorandum of Agreement, dated November 20, 

2000, the Metlakatla Indian Community has worked jointly with the Department 

of Defense (DOD), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, on 

developing the Walden Point Road to alleviate isolation and improve public safety 

and health care (emergency medical evacuations must now be all by air). The 

project, when completed, would link Metlakatla to the city of Ketchikan. The project 

is eligible for funding under 23 USC 101 (a) 12 and is listed on the Indian Reservations Roads Inventory of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Walden Point Road, Air 7, 

Sections 30–130 (14.7 miles). The Community is seeking $8,850,000 (based on 

FHWA cost estimates) to keep this project on track in fiscal year 2004 from the Federal Highway Administration. The Community requests $6,000,000 to continue the 

Walden Point Road project in fiscal year 2004 from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Thank you for consideration of our concerns with respect to the Indian Health 

Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriations for fiscal year 2004. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE

Greetings from the Hoopa Valley Tribe, name is Clifford Lyle Marshall and I am 

the Chairman of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, which is located in Northern California 

wilderness, in a beautiful but geologically remote area, economically depressed and 

with a high rate of unemployment. Our people are struggling with poverty, discrimination and limited access to health care. The Hoopa Valley Reservation was established by an Executive Order in 1864 as a direct result of negotiations for a peace 

and friendship treaty between the Hoopa People and the United States Government. 

More recently, it was one of the original ten federally recognized Indian tribes to 

participate in the Self-Governance Demonstration Project. 

THE HOOPA VALLEY RESERVATION DEMOGRAPHICS

144 square miles of reservation territory. The off reservation service area is over 

400 square miles. This is a tri-county service area consisting of Humboldt, Siskiyou 

and Trinity Counties. 

—The population (2000) was 2,633

—Native language: Athabascan 

—Race: 84.7 percent Native American, 11.9 percent White, and 3.9 percent Other

PERSON LIVING BELOW POVERTY LEVEL (1999) 

[Percent] 

Hoopa, Families ........................................................................................................................................................ 29.0 

Hoopa, Individuals ................................................................................................................................................... 32.0 

Humboldt County, individuals (1990) ...................................................................................................................... 12.8 

State of California ................................................................................................................................................... 14.2 

National .................................................................................................................................................................... 12.4 

HOOPA COMMUNITY HEALTH PROFILE 

Disability status (percent): 

21 to 64 years with a disability ................................................................................................................. 22.7 

Over 65 years with a disability .................................................................................................................... 54.4 
466

HOOPA COMMUNITY HEALTH PROFILE—Continued

Birth Rate: 

Hoopa ............................................................................................................................................................ 24.7/1000 

United States ................................................................................................................................................ 14.6/1000

Diabetes Health Disparities 

—175 current patients diagnosed as diabetic 

—700 Children 2–19 years of age at risk of developing adult onset diabetes secondary to obesity 

Childhood Obesity is a major health disparity on the Hoopa Reservation. Over 64 

percent of the Hoopa Valley Reservation is obese. The National level is 15 percent, 

the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation is far over this amount. 

The Governing Board and the Executive Leadership at K’ima:w Medical Center 

conducted a comprehensive analysis regarding the health profile of our community 

and concluded that many significant and alarming health disparities are growing. 

Our people are in desperate need of assistance to expand and improve existent services and to create new services. We have a long and strong tradition in delivering 

healthcare locally. Exporting health services to urban centers would disrupt the continuity of care lifestyle, and would conflict with our cultural tradition and will weaken even further our economical infrastructure. After a careful consideration, the following four priorities were identified as most needed. 

Expansion of healthcare access to include 24-hour emergency medical standby.— Our people deserve accessible, prompt and consistent service at the most beneficial 

and necessary time. By extending our hours we will provide not only better access, 

also continuity in time comprehensiveness and coordination of care. The cost of increased required staffing and operating extended hours is estimated at $635,868 per 

year. 

Dialysis Center.—Our community has an above average number of diabetic patients on dialysis that we transport three times a week at approximately sixty miles 

distance. We project that the number of people in need of dialysis will double in the 

next five years. In order, to start with four stations and expand as needed we estimate the need of $1,400,000.00. This will cover the initial cost of equipment and 

startup of the service for one year. 

Ambulance Expansion.—Our service population is dispersed over 400 square 

miles, with rugged roads. Maintaining the Ambulance service is critical for transporting patients to K’ima:w Medical Center in Hoopa or to the next hospital. We 

need to move the Ambulance to a more efficient central location and to replace some 

of the critical equipments. The total level of funded needed to do this is estimated 

at $205,000.00. 

Expansion of the Field Health and Outreach program.—We provide continuity of 

care and education at patients home. Part of the service is transporting non-emergent patients to and from K’ima:w Medical Center or to specialty visits in Redding 

or San Francisco. The CHR service is essential in assisting elderly with home 

healthcare. The level of funding to expand our service is estimated at $197,000.00 

per year. 

In order, to increase service to our remote rural area we will need $2,437,668.00 

in addition to what we are currently funded. Our American people are confronted 

with disproportionate incidence of disease and medical conditions, aggravated inadequate funding and worsening economical and social environment. Equalizing care 

and providing similar health services available to most Americans is our sacred responsibility. Thank you, for your time and consideration, and if you have any questions check out our website at www.hoopa-nsn.gov or call Emmet Chase at (530) 

625–4261. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN HEALTH BOARD

The President’s Indian Health Service (IHS) fiscal year 2004 budget request is 

$2.89 billion, and we are requesting an additional $679 million to boost clinical services, contract health services, facility construction, self-governance programs, and 

funding to address increased pay act costs, population growth, etc. 

The NIHB serves nearly all Federally Recognized American Indian and Alaska 

Native (AI/AN) Tribal governments in advocating for the improvement of health 

care delivery to American Indians and Alaska Natives. We strive to advance the 

level of health care and the adequacy of funding for health services that are operated by the Indian Health Service, programs operated directly by Tribal Governments, and other programs. Our Board Members represent each of the twelve Areas 
467

of IHS and are elected at-large by the respective Tribal Governmental Officials 

within their regional area. 

As we enter the 108th Congressional session, we call upon Congress and the Administration to address the funding disparities that continue to hamper Indian 

Country’s efforts to improve the health status of American Indians and Alaska Natives. No other segment of the population is more negatively impacted by health disparities than the AI/AN population and Tribal members suffer from disproportionately higher rates of chronic disease and other illnesses. 

The federal responsibility to provide health services to American Indians and 

Alaska Natives reflects the unique government-to-government relationship that exists between the Tribes and the United States. The importance of this relationship 

is reflected in the provisions of Article I, § 8, clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which gives the federal government specific authorities in its dealings with Indian Tribes. 

Indian Country has continuously advocated for equitable health care funding. 

Health care spending for AI/AN’s lags far behind spending for other segments of society. For example, per capita expenditures for AI/AN beneficiaries receiving services in the IHS are approximately one-half of the per capita expenditures for Medicaid beneficiaries and one-third of the per capita expenditures for VA beneficiaries. 

Sadly, the federal government spends nearly twice as much money for a federal 

prisoner’s health care that it does for an American Indian or Alaska Native. The 

failure of the federal government to provide equitable health funding for American 

Indians and Alaska Natives reflects a tragic failure by the United States to carry 

out its solemn Trust responsibility to American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal 

governments. 

The greatest travesty in looking at the deplorable health of American Indians 

comes in recognizing that the vast majority of illnesses and deaths from disease 

could be preventable if funding was available to provide even a basic level of care. 

It is unfortunate that despite two centuries of treaties and promises, over 1.6 million American Indians and Alaska Natives are forced to endure health conditions 

and a level of health care funding that would be unacceptable to most other U.S. 

citizens. 

The President’s IHS fiscal year 2004 budget request is $2.89 billion, an increase 

of $40 million over the fiscal year 2003 enacted amount for the Indian Health Service. Even if the $50 million increase for diabetes funding is included the budget request is still over $200 million short of what is needed to maintain current services. 

It is estimated that a $325 million increase is required provide the same level of 

health care services provided in fiscal year 2003. This amount would be sufficient 

to cover pay act costs, population growth, etc. 

The President’s budget includes $114 million for sanitation construction, an increase of $20 million over the fiscal year 2003 Budget Request. This 20 percent increase represents the largest increase provided for sanitation construction in over 

a decade. This provision and significant increase is applauded and demonstrates the 

Administration’s commitment to providing safe water and waste disposal to an estimated 22,000 homes, an increase of 2,600 over the number of homes served in 2003. 

Proper sanitation facilities play a considerable role in the reduction of infant mortality and deaths from gastrointestinal disease in Indian Country. 

The President’s budget request also reflects the $50 million increase in the Special 

Diabetes Program for Indians funding approved during the 107th Congress. We are 

grateful to the Administration and Congress for recognizing the success and effectiveness of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians as a tool to reduce the incidence and harmful effects of Diabetes in Indian Country. 

Health Facility Construction.—The budget includes a total of $72 million for construction of new health facilities allowing IHS to replace its priority health care facility needs with modern health facilities and to significantly expand capacity at its 

most overcrowded sites. The request will complete outpatient facilities at Pinon 

(Navajo Reservation, Arizona) and Metlakatla (Annette Island, Alaska); continue 

construction of the Red Mesa Outpatient Facility (Navajo Reservation, Arizona) and 

begin construction of a new outpatient facility to replace the Sisseton hospital 

(Sisseton- Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, South Dakota). When the Sisseton hospital is 

closed, IHS will purchase inpatient and emergency care from non-IHS facilities such 

as the nearby Coteau Des Prairies hospital. 

Pay Costs.—The budget includes an additional $35 million to cover increased pay 

costs for IHS’s 15,021 FTEs and to allow tribally run health programs to provide 

comparable pay raises to their own staffs. 

The budget documented the IHS health care funding needs at $18.2 billion. President Bush’s proposed appropriation of $2.89 billion falls well short of the level of 
468

funding that would permit Indian programs to achieve health and health system 

parity with the majority of other Americans. 

Failure to adequately increase the Indian Health Service clinical services budget 

will force numerous Tribal health providers to cut back services, worsening the 

plight of an already severely at-risk population and jeopardizing greater public 

health. Staff cuts would also result, increasing waiting periods to get appointments, 

as well as reducing clinic hours. Also, without adequate funding, several successful 

programs throughout Indian Country would have to be eliminated, such as patient 

outreach, nutritional programs, preventive care, referral services, dental and optometric services. 

Funding for the Indian Health Service has failed to keep pace with population increases and inflation. While mandatory programs such as Medicaid and Medicare 

have accrued annual increases of 5 to 10 percent in order to keep pace with inflation, the IHS has not received these comparable increases. Current Indian Health 

Service funding is so inadequate that less than 60 percent of the health care needs 

of American Indians and Alaska Natives. We request that an additional $292 million, which represents an additional 10 percent over the President’s request, be provided to the Indian Health Service to address medical inflation, currently at a rate 

of 12 percent. 

As we have carefully reviewed the President’s fiscal year 2004 IHS Budget Request, several provisions would seriously affect the agency’s ability to carry out its 

responsibilities pertaining to the health and welfare of American Indians and Alaska Natives. Below, I will briefly discuss several of these provisions. The President’s Budget Request includes $493 million, which provides an addi- tional $25 million or 5 percent increase over the previous year’s request, for Contract Health Services. The documented need for the Contract Health Service Program in Indian Country exceeds $1 Billion. At present, less than one-half of the 

CHS need is being met, leaving too many Indian people without access to necessary 

medical services. We recommend an increase of at least $175 million, which would 

raise American Indian and Alaska Native tribes to approximately 60 percent of 

need. 

The President’s fiscal year 2004 Budget Request includes $271 million, the same 

as the fiscal year 2003 enacted budget, to support tribal efforts to develop the administrative infrastructure critical to their ability to successfully operate IHS programs. Tribal governments continue to assume control of new programs, services, 

functions, and activities under Self-Determination and Self-Governance, therefore 

additional funding is needed. Tribal programs have clearly increased the quality and 

level of services in their health systems fairly significantly over direct service programs and failing to adequately fund Contract Support Costs is defeating the very 

programs that appear to be helping improve health conditions for American Indians 

and Alaska Natives. We recommend an additional $150 million to meet the shortfall 

for current contracting and compacting. 

According to the President’s fiscal year 2004 Budget, the number of tribally managed IHS programs continues to increase, both in dollar terms and as a percentage 

of the whole IHS budget. Tribal governments will control an estimated $1.6 billion 

of IHS programs in fiscal year 2004, representing 53 percent of the IHS’s total budget request. Because of this, it is critical that funding for self-governance be provided 

in a manner reflective of this. Therefore, we feel it is necessary to provide $12 million funding over and above the proposed amount of $12 million. The enacted fiscal 

year 2003 budget cut the office of Self-Governance funding by 50 percent without 

any notice to tribes. 

The President’s budget includes savings of $31 million from administrative reductions and better management of information technology. The IHS proposes to 

achieve these savings primarily by reducing the use of Federal staff. IHS also plans 

to reduce administrative costs and to achieve efficiencies through the development, 

modernization and enhancement of IHS information systems. 

The National Indian Health Board and Tribal governments have long been concerned about ‘‘cost-saving’’ provisions contained in the President’s Budget Request, 

both in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004. The result will be the elimination of 

potentially hundreds of full-time staff at the headquarters and area levels, which 

would add new burdens to the provision of health care to American Indians and 

Alaska Natives, rather than addressing the widespread health disparities throughout Indian Country. We feel it is appropriate that the President’s Management Initiatives not be implemented until Tribal governments have the opportunity to develop feasible alternatives. 

The President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Department of Health and 

Human Services (DHHS) reflects the priorities of the United States with regard to 

health and safety concerns relating to Homeland Security. It reflects the Adminis-
469

tration’s commitment to anticipating future threats to America’s public health care, 

health infrastructure and human services systems. It is important to note that, 

along with the Department of Defense and Veteran’s Affairs health systems, the Indian Health Service occupies a unique position within the Federal government as 

a direct health care provider. Therefore, we are requesting $50 million be added 

during fiscal year 2004 to help the Indian Health Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal governments prepare for and respond to potential terrorist attacks, 

including increases for Data Systems Improvements and much needed funds to expand the capacity of tribal epidemiology centers. 

On behalf of the National Indian Health Board, I would like to thank the Senate 

Appropriation Committee—Interior subcommittee for its consideration of our concerns as we strive to improve the health of American Indian and Alaska Native people. If we are ever to reduce the terrible disparities between the health of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives compared to other Americans, we need to properly fund 

the Indian Health Service and we urge Congress to significantly increase IHS funding for fiscal year 2004. IHS and the Tribes are continuing to work diligently to develop health systems of sufficient quality and with levels of services that our people 

desperately need. 

CULTURAL AGENCIES 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE

CULTURE AND ARTS DEVELOPMENT

On behalf of the Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts 

Development (IAIA), our Board of Trustees, students, faculty, staff and entire community, we express our enormous gratitude for the Subcommittee’s past commitment to IAIA. Federal appropriations are crucial to the operations, continued success and development of the college and museum. 

SUMMARY OF REQUEST

IAIA is authorized under Public Law 99–498. Herein, we respectfully submit our 

fiscal year 2004 request, a total of $9.25 million to be allocated as follows: 

—$5.25 million, as supported in the President’s fiscal year 2004 Request, for 

strengthening operations as IAIA continues to mature into a four-year postsecondary institution and prepares for its first accreditation assessment of new 

four-year programs; and, 

—$8 million for capital construction, phased in with $4 million in fiscal year 2004 

and $4 million in fiscal year 2005 to meet an $8 million federal matching requirement of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation for the development of an international American Indian, Alaska Native and indigenous lifelong learning center. 

INTRODUCTION

IAIA, originally established in 1962 by Executive Order of President John F. Kennedy, has produced most of North America’s most illustrious contemporary Indian 

artists. Founded as a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) high school, IAIA’s path has 

been one of steady evolution—from a unique high school, sharing quarters with 

Santa Fe’s old Indian School, to a federally chartered four-year college, building its 

own campus and operating the American Indian Arts Museum—a cultural jewel in 

historic Santa Fe, NM. 

The Institute’s founders championed freedom of expression for American Indian 

artists. Stereotypes were dispelled through bold creative expression and for the first 

time, Indian artists set their own artistic standards, becoming empowered by their 

own voices. From this vision, the contemporary Indian art movement was born, enriching Indian and non-Indian cultures alike, aesthetically and economically. The 

Institute’s success is firmly grounded in the empowerment of American Indian and 

Alaska Native people in their pursuit of higher education, economic self-sufficiency, 

and the continued expression of their artistic creativity and cultural traditions. 

IAIA’s history has not always been an easy path. The past decade in particular 

presented many difficulties due to leadership turnover and severe cuts in federal appropriations. Important programs were eliminated, student enrollment suffered and 

the college endowment was severely depleted. As a result, accreditation was threatened. 

IAIA is still working to rebuild its former strength. Through dedicated effort it 

has emerged stronger and more determined than ever and has won the hearts of 
470

many. A stronger working relationship with Congress and the OMB has been established, along with a focused concentration on private sector fundraising. Undertaking a design and build process as monies were raised for new campus construction allowed the Institute to celebrate a grand opening of its new campus in 2000. 

In 2001–2002 another historic landmark was reach—IAIA became a four-year college and was granted accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges 

and Schools to offer Bachelor’s degrees in Museum Studies, Creative Writing, Studio 

Arts, and Visual Communications. In 2002, IAIA celebrated its 40th Anniversary 

and gained national accolades for its history, enormous contributions to the larger 

society, and most importantly, its impact on the thousands of Native students it has 

served. 

KEY FACTS RELEVANT TO FEDERAL FUNDING. 

Charter.—IAIA is federally chartered by Public Law 99–498. This law affirms and 

acknowledges that Native art and culture are critical to the nation as a whole and, 

consequently deems it appropriate and even essential for the federal government to 

support IAIA in advancing the preservation and promotion of Native arts and cultures. 

Mission.—With IAIA’s unique authority and charter, its mission is to serve as the 

national center of research, training, language and scholarship for Native Americans and Alaska Natives, dedicated to the study, creative application, preservation 

and care of our Native arts and cultures. The primary goal of IAIA is to enhance 

knowledge and understanding of the cultural traditions of American Indians and 

Alaska Natives with a special focus on traditional and contemporary Native art. To 

this end, it provides a culturally based curriculum that combines professional skills 

development with an integrated liberal arts education. 

Funding.—As a national postsecondary institution, IAIA operations are funded 

through direct federal support and a diversified private sector approach to foundations, corporations, tribes, and individual donors. It does not receive state support 

for operations or student aid. 

Governance.—IAIA is governed by a board of trustees appointed by the President 

of the United States and confirmed by the Senate, a majority of which must be of 

American Indian and Alaska Native descent. 

Educational Goals.—IAIA’s educational goals are to: recruit and admit qualified 

American Indian and Alaska Native students and provide them with a Native-centered arts education—graduate students from the degree programs with demonstrated artistic and academic competency—focus on the needs of the individual 

student by providing an environment that encourages independent work, personal 

growth and professional development—strengthen cultural identity—and provide 

awareness of community and cultural diversity. 

Museum.—IAIA’s enabling legislation also authorizes funding to the IAIA Museum and specifies its dual purpose of education and presentation. Its facilities and 

collections provide hands-on training for students and faculty and serve as an outlet 

to showcase exemplary work and ongoing connections with alumni. It provides the 

Institute with a highly visible venue for public relations, education, and outreach 

efforts, attracting over 50,000 visitors annually. It also houses 6,500 pieces, comprising the National Collection of Indian Contemporary Art and valuable artifacts 

from BIA collections. 

Campus.—The Rancho Viejo Partnership, Ltd. donated 140 acres to IAIA for the 

establishment of the college’s permanent campus. IAIA developed the land infrastructure for site development and created an impressive master campus plan. The 

first phase of the new campus, which is nearly complete, includes several buildings: 

Academic and Administration, Cultural Center, Student Housing, Student Life Center, Facilities and IT Management, and the Library and Technology Center. 

Student Body.—IAIA’s diverse student body represents virtually every state in the 

country. Over the years, IAIA has enrolled and graduated almost 4,000 members 

of the 558 federally recognized tribes. The student population is 90 percent American Indian and Alaska Native. It is relatively young in comparison to other tribal 

college student populations. The majority is need-based, reside on campus, and experience phenomenal personal and professional growth from the holistic framework 

and relevancy of the curriculum. Graduates become renowned artists or highly respected professionals in tribal communities and mainstream society. 

Tuition.—IAIA’s tuition rates are similar to other community colleges in the 

Santa Fe area, but is strongly committed to assisting its student body access federal 

and private sources of financial aid. 

Performance Measures.—The college is assessed regularly by mainstream accreditation review committees and meets strict evaluation standards. It has achieved 
471

dual accreditation as a Fine Arts College by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and the National Association of Schools of Art and Design. 

Community Support.—IAIA is strongly supported nationally by tribes and Indian 

education and tribal organizations. This budget request has the unanimous support 

(by resolution) of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, the All Indian 

Pueblo Council, the National Congress of the American Indian, and the National Indian Education Association. 

Budget Justifications 

After many years as a two-year college, the Institute is now transitioning into a 

four-year college of higher learning. It is in the process of fully developing a range 

of arts and culturally based degree programs in art, design, media arts, and digital 

communications. Along with this successful growth it is critical to recognize the 

challenges and additional associated costs, as reported to you in our budget requests 

for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. Actual costs of core operations, imperative 

to the four-year designation, were not addressed in the fiscal year 2003 budget. 

Through the implementation of an aggressive fundraising campaign, aimed at individuals, corporations, tribes, and private foundations, IAIA has increased its private 

sector donations. However, serious challenges exist due to the downturn in the economy and stock market, both of which have resulted in substantial investment losses 

for the philanthropic community. 

However, even with diversified and additional private support, it has not been 

enough to adequately supplement federal appropriations in addressing ‘‘actual’’ costs 

of operations at the Institute. This has forced IAIA to absorb the difference internally, posing serious implications for the overall health of the Institute and placing 

additional burdens on an already stringent core budget and over-stretched staff. 

Staff and faculty have not received cost of living increases over the past three years. 

Program budgets have been reduced by over 10 percent annually and existing staff 

and faculty are absorbing additional responsibilities. This is causing burnout, high 

staff turnover, and a depletion of IAIA’s reserve/endowment fund, ultimately weakening core infrastructure and budget stability. Consistent funding streams and stable core operations are imperative to maintaining accreditation standing and essential to continued progress and success. This situation must be addressed before the 

next accreditation review in 2004. Our budget request represents the minimum 

amount necessary to address infrastructure needs, stabilize operations and meet 

other accreditation standards and criteria. 

Continuing Education Lifelong Learning Center 

The emergence of adult learners as a major constituency in American higher education has been one of the most dramatic changes in the United States in the past 

25 years. Since the 1970s, major commissions have been established to examine lifelong learning. Their recommendations and findings present significant research and 

evidence, which have led to a national education agenda with a high priority on 

comprehensive lifelong learning. As a result, the Kellogg Foundation has established 

continuing education centers throughout the world, demonstrating their commitment to creating comprehensive lifelong learning models across all levels and groups 

of people. However, while Native populations have not been considered in this dialogue or agenda, they have some of the highest educational needs in this country. 

Through a competitive process the W.K. Kellogg Foundation recently selected 

IAIA as the designated site for the very first continuing education center to serve 

American Indian, Alaska Native and indigenous peoples worldwide. Planning, construction and development costs are projected at $22 million. The Kellogg Foundation awarded IAIA a lead gift of $2 million for planning, which requires a federal 

match of at least $8 million for an additional $8–10 million award from the Foundation. Federal cooperation is essential to the success of this initiative. It will exemplify a national model of excellence in reaching the primary goal of President Bush’s 

Executive Order on Tribal Colleges and Universities—federal and private engagement in supporting American Indian higher education. The Institute is fully committed to planning for the sustainability of the Center and diversifying initial construction and start-up costs by engaging private, federal, state, and tribal partners, 

as the following chart specifies:

BREAKDOWN OF FUNDRAISING GOALS 

[In millions of dollars] 

Kellogg Initial Planning Award and Lead Gift ............................................................................................................ 2 

Federal Sector .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 
472

BREAKDOWN OF FUNDRAISING GOALS—Continued

[In millions of dollars] 

New Mexico State Legislature ...................................................................................................................................... 2 

American Indian Tribes ................................................................................................................................................ 2 

Kellogg Matching Award .............................................................................................................................................. 8

Total ................................................................................................................................................................ 22 

We have shared information about the Center with the key leaders in the Congress, federal agencies, White House, New Mexico State Legislature, and tribes, indigenous communities, organizations, and other potential national and international 

partners. The response has been incredibly favorable, as there is a collective vision 

that the Center will allow for an exponential increase in quality lifelong educational 

opportunities for our people and indigenous populations across the world. Our goal 

is to ensure that the Center will empower and better equip Native people to take 

their rightful positions in all aspects of the changing global society. 

CONCLUSION

Last year IAIA celebrated 40 years of artistic excellence. Through a tireless dedication of IAIA’s staff, faculty, trustees, as well as the critical support of President 

Bush, Congress, foundations and many individuals, we have achieved great things. 

This success has positioned the Institute to truly become a nationally prominent, 

internationally respected four-year institution of higher education. We appeal to you 

to provide the necessary support to IAIA’s hard-earned momentum. The federal resources specified in our budget request are essential to the future of the Institute 

of American Indian Arts. Thank you for your serious consideration and continued 

support. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS

Chairman Burns, Senator Dorgan and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, the American Association of Museums (AAM) is pleased to submit testimony concerning the fiscal year 2004 budgets of the National Endowment for the 

Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). 

The American Association of Museums (AAM), headquartered in Washington 

D.C., is the national service organization that represents and addresses the needs 

of the broad range of the museum community to enhance their ability to serve the 

public. AAM disseminates information on current standards and best practices and 

provides professional development for museum professionals to ensure that museums have the capacity to contribute to life-long education in its broadest sense and 

to protect and preserve our shared cultural heritage. Since it’s founding in 1906, 

AAM has grown to more than 15,800 members across the United States—over 

10,000 individual museum professionals and volunteers, nearly 3,000 institutions, 

and 2,300 corporate members. 

The museum community has enjoyed a positive and productive working partnership with both the NEA and NEH for many years. Whether they have worked in 

conjunction with the Institute of Museum and Library Services or on their own, the 

contributions of the NEA and NEH to the vitality of America’s museums and the 

public services they provide to our communities can not be underestimated. These 

two agencies have provided invaluable support to America’s museums since their inception, and we fully support them and the good work they do for the American people. 

Consequently, we view the proposed fiscal year 2004 budgets for the NEA and 

NEH with a mixture of optimism and disappointment. We appreciate the Administration’s strong support for the National Endowment for the Humanities and fully 

support the President’s request of $152 million for NEH in fiscal year 2004 but we 

are disappointed by the decision to keep NEA funding essentially flat at $117.5 million. 

As the committee knows, the core of the NEH request is an increase of $25 million to expand a special initiative begun last year entitled We the People. We fully 

support this initiative which is designed to advance understanding of American history, culture, and civics. We believe, however, that the arts are as integral to American history, culture and civics as the humanities and we are disappointed the administration chose not to reinforce the power of We the People by providing addi-
473

tional funds to the National Endowment for the Arts to help broaden public access 

to and understanding of our rich artistic heritage as well. 

We recognize that we are in the midst of a national crisis both at home and 

abroad and that difficult budget decisions need to be made, but we urge the committee to consider the economic, educational and social return even a modest increase in the federal investment in the arts and humanities would bring to the people we all serve. 

It would be incorrect to suggest that artistic and cultural events would cease without funding from the federal government. However, we are convinced that America 

would not have the rich, diverse and vibrant artistic community we have in this 

country if it were not for the support both large and small organizations have received from the NEA over the last 35 years. The recognition that comes from being 

awarded NEA grant funding is invaluable to an organization. It helps them leverage 

additional private support—NEA requires grant recipients to match all awards up 

to a ratio of four to one—that allows organizations to continue to grow and mature 

long after the federal money is gone. Dollar for dollar, private funding simply cannot 

match the impact of even a modest amount of government funding. Even leaving 

aside the educational and social value of strengthening the federal investment in 

the arts, both of which are substantial, the economic value speaks for itself. The 

nonprofit arts industry alone generates $53.2 billion annually in economic activity, 

supports 2.09 million jobs and returns $5.6 billion to the federal government in income taxes. NEA seed money has helped make this possible. 

In his testimony before the committee on March 13, NEA Chairman Dana Gioia 

stated that one of his five primary goals for the NEA was to ‘‘reclaim its leadership 

role in American culture.’’ He said, the Endowment:

‘‘. . . must enter a new era, confident of its civic responsibilities in a society overwhelmed by commercialized electronic mass entertainment. The NEA must enlarge 

the conversation of American public life to include the arts. It must promote, preserve, and celebrate the best of our culture, old and new, classic and contemporary. 

It must reacquaint America with its own best self.’’

For, as he so rightly put it, ‘‘nothing less is worthy of our nation.’’

A budget of $170 million would enable the NEA to take important strides towards 

reclaiming its leadership role and expand its ability to support and promote creativity in the arts in America. In addition, a $170 million budget allows the endowment to fully fund the Challenge America initiative. By fully funding this initiative, 

the Arts Endowment can use the program’s vast potential through grants for arts 

education, youth-at-risk projects, cultural preservation, community arts partnerships and improved access to the arts for all Americans, to use the strength of the 

arts to enhance America’s communities. 

Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is that culture is what defines, builds and binds 

our communities. In cities and towns across America one finds numerous examples 

of arts, culture and the humanities being used as educational tools, economic engines, sources of civic pride, and catalysts for fostering a greater sense of community 

identity and multicultural understanding. To ensure that America continues to have 

a strong, vibrant, and viable artistic and cultural community that future generations can enjoy and learn from tomorrow requires a prudent and forward thinking 

investment in our artistic and cultural institutions today. We ask the committee to 

make that investment and support a budget of $170 million for the NEA for fiscal 

year 2004. 

We also ask the committee to support the administration’s request of $152 million 

for the National Endowment for the Humanities. The NEH plays an important role 

in the American experience. In fact, the humanities are essential to democracy. 

They are the basis for reasoned discourse and make possible the shared reflection, 

communication, and participation upon which democratic society depends. In his 

testimony to the committee on March 13th, NEH Chairman Bruce Cole made a very 

compelling case for supporting the NEH’s budget request for fiscal year 2004. He 

said:

‘‘At this critical time, it is urgent that Americans understand the principles, 

events, and ideas that have defined our past and shape our future. Democracy, unlike other forms of government, is not self-perpetuating. Its principles and practices 

must be cultivated in order to be transmitting and sustained.’’

Yet numerous studies and reports show that students in K–12, and even college, 

have a poor, or at best confused, understanding of our nation’s history and the 

ideals and principles of democracy upon which it was founded. The NEH is well positioned to help redress these deficiencies. 
474

The NEH is the largest single funder of humanities programs in the United 

States, enriching American intellectual and cultural life through support to museums, archives, libraries, colleges, universities, state humanities councils, public television and radio, and to individual scholars. Continuing this support is critical to 

addressing the nation’s future needs in education. With more than two-thirds of our 

nation’s K–12 curriculum dedicated to the humanities, including subjects such as 

reading, literature, history and civics, continuing this support is crucial to addressing our nation’s needs in education and correcting the problem of ‘‘American amnesia’’ as Chairman Cole put it. 

NEH’s impact, however, reaches beyond the classroom and lecture hall by engaging the public in the humanities through exhibits in museums, libraries, and historical organizations; the varied programs of the state humanities councils and a variety of other activities. In a recent national public opinion survey, almost 9 out of 

10 Americans (87 percent) said museums are one of the most trustworthy sources 

of information among a wide range of choices. This high level of trust can in part 

be attributed to the careful research that goes into developing museum exhibitions 

and programs. NEH grants, in addition to being invaluable in supporting efforts to 

preserve and protect our vast cultural, historic, and artistic resources held in trust 

for the American people in our museums, are also invaluable in supporting efforts 

to research those treasures and put them into historical context. An object or artifact without context tells no story and teaches nothing. 

As with the NEA, a modest investment through the NEH produces rich dividends. 

NEH seed money for high quality projects and programs, and NEH’s reputation for 

scholarly excellence, leverages millions of dollars in private support for humanities 

projects and brings the humanities alive for millions of Americans each year—from 

the youngest students to the most veteran professors to men and women who simply 

strive for a greater appreciation of our nation’s past, present, and future. 

Federal support for the humanities has historically received bipartisan support in 

Congress, from the Endowment’s creation in 1965 to the present day. Every American President has said that the humanities play an essential role in American life 

and are worthy of federal support and this administration is no exception, as evidenced by their strong support for the We The People initiative. We strongly support this program and the NEH in general and ask the committee to fully fund the 

administration’s budget request of $152 million for fiscal year 2004 for this extremely valuable agency. 

Mr. Chairman, we firmly believe that the NEA and the NEH are both wonderful 

resources and leaders for the American people in their respective areas. The museum community is proud to partner with both agencies to provide high quality programs and services for the people we all serve. 

The NEA and NEH are not the same entities they were almost a decade ago. The 

agencies have reformed and refocused their programs on serving public and community needs. It is the time to reward these efforts and give the Endowments the resources to fully embrace this new phase of their history, particularly at a time when 

all Americans need to understand the principles of their own and others’ cultures 

in greater depth. Additional funding would enable the agencies to enhance and increase their public service activities as well as expand the reach of new and innovative programs and help the agencies rebuild their technology and internal administration after years of essentially stagnant budgets. 

We of course recognize, Mr. Chairman, that you and your colleagues are under 

intense pressure to balance the funding needs of the many worth programs under 

your jurisdiction. We would ask you though to consider carefully the good work 

being done by the NEA and NEH for the American people and do what you can to 

fund these urgently needed increases. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS

Americans for the Arts is pleased to submit written testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior in support of fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts at an increased funding level of $170 

million, with the increase used to support the creation, preservation, and presentation of the arts and for the Challenge America initiative. 

Americans for the Arts is the nation’s leading nonprofit organization for advancing the arts. With a 40-year record of objective arts industry research, it is dedicated to representing and serving local communities and creating opportunities for 

every American to participate in and appreciate all forms of the arts. 

Local arts agencies comprise our core constituency. As important grantees of the 

National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), local arts agencies are entrusted public 
475

stewards of government funds for the arts. An increase in funding for the NEA 

means more grants for local arts agencies to utilize as they increase Americans’ access to the arts at the local level and improve communities by stimulating economic 

development and improving community life. An increase in NEA funding would create increased funding for local arts agencies to continue their vital role in community building. 

LOCAL ARTS AGENCY TRENDS—THE KEY TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE

ARTS

A local arts agency is a private community organization or local government agency that supports cultural organizations, provides services to artists or arts organizations, and/or presents arts programming to the public. 

For 15 years, local government arts funding has been growing steadily, staying 

ahead of inflation and even showing growth during the recession years of the early 

1990’s. This year, however, we saw the first aggregate decrease in local government 

funding for the arts in more than 15 years, to an estimated $771 million—a drop 

of about 3.5 percent. 

Local arts agencies continue to expand the role of the arts in their communities 

by using the arts to address social, educational, and economic development issues. 

Nearly all of them collaborate with community organizations or local government 

agencies to integrate the arts more fully into their community and to assist those 

agencies in achieving their missions, e.g., economic development departments to develop cultural districts, chambers of commerce to attract new businesses, parks and 

recreation departments to create after-school programs, convention and visitor bureaus to increase cultural tourism, and police departments to prevent crime. 

Arts & Economic Prosperity 

In 2002, Americans for the Arts released the results of a national economic impact 

study measuring the nonprofit arts industry in 91 American communities during 

2000–2001. The diverse communities range in population (4,000 to 3 million), geography (Anchorage to Miami), and type (rural to large urban). Local arts agenciespublic and private organizations working to increase community access to and participation in the arts-served as local research partners, collecting detailed expenditure data from 3,000 nonprofit arts organizations (full range from theater to museums) and 40,000 audience members. The project economists, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, customized input/output analysis models for each of the 91 communities to provide specific and reliable economic impact data about their nonprofit 

arts industry. 

The Arts & Economic Prosperity study documents in unprecedented scope and detail the key role played by the nonprofit arts industry in strengthening our nation’s 

economy. It dramatically alters the perception that the arts are luxuries—worth 

supporting in prosperous times but hard to justify when the economy is struggling. 

At a time when governments at all levels are making tough budget choices, this 

study sends an important message—that support for the arts does not come at the 

expense of economic development. In 1994, Americans for the Arts published its first 

economic impact study and the results from that study became the most frequently 

used statistics in Congress and other arenas to demonstrate the value of the arts 

to our communities, our states, and our nation. In 2000, we set out to update those 

numbers with a new and larger study. Not only did we want to measure the impact 

of spending by nonprofit arts organizations, but also to quantify the economic impact of event-related spending by their audiences. 

By all measures, the results are impressive. The nonprofit arts industry generates 

$134 billion in economic activity every year—$53.2 billion in spending by arts organizations and an additional $80.8 billion in event-related spending by arts audiences. This economic activity has a significant national impact. This economic activity supports 4.9 million full-time equivalent jobs—a greater percentage of the U.S. 

workforce than is employed as accountants, lawyers, physicians, or computer programmers. America’s nonprofit arts industry also generates $24.4 billion in federal, 

state, and local government revenues combined annually. By comparison, federal, 

state, and local governments collectively spend less than $3 billion on support for 

the arts each year-a financial return of more than 8-to-1. 

Growth of the Nonprofit Arts Industry since 1994

The nonprofit arts are a growth industry in the United States. Spending by arts 

organizations increased from $36.8 billion in 1992 to $53.2 billion in 2000 (45 percent). 
476

Measuring Ancillary Spending of Nonprofit Arts Audiences 

The nonprofit arts, unlike most industries, leverage significant amounts of eventrelated spending by their audiences. Attendance at arts events generates related 

commerce for local businesses such as hotels, restaurants, and retail stores. For example, when patrons attend a performing arts event, they may park their car in 

a toll garage, purchase dinner at a restaurant, eat dessert after the show, and return home and pay the babysitter. This spending generated an estimated $80.8 billion of valuable revenue for local merchants and their communities in 2000—an average of $22.87 per person, per event, not including the price of admission. 

Cultural Tourism: Out-of-Towners Spend More 

In addition to spending data, survey respondents were asked to provide their 

home zip codes, enabling researchers to determine which attendees were local (i.e., 

reside within the county in which the event occurred) and which were non-local (reside outside the county). Local attendees spent an average of $21.75 per event, while 

non-local attendees spent $38.05 per event (74.9 percent more). As would be expected, travelers spent significantly more in the categories of lodging, meals, retail, 

and transportation. These data demonstrate that when a community invests in the 

arts, it stands to harness significant economic rewards.

NONPROFIT ARTS ATTENDEES SPEND AN AVERAGE OF $22.87 PER PERSON 

[Not Including the Cost of Admission] 

Category of expense Resident 1

attendees 

Non-resident 1

attendees 

All arts

attendees 

Meals and Refreshments ........................................................................... $9.99 $15.12 $10.33 

Souvenirs and Gifts ................................................................................... 3.49 4.01 3.51 

Transportation ............................................................................................ 2.39 5.74 2.63 

Overnight Lodging (one night only) ........................................................... 2.13 7.80 2.55 

Other .......................................................................................................... 3.75 5.38 3.85

Total Per Person Spending ........................................................... 21.75 38.05 22.87 

1 Residents live in the county in which the event took place; non-residents live outside the county. 

When governments reduce their support for the arts, they are not cutting frills. 

They are under-cutting a nonprofit industry that is a cornerstone of tourism and 

downtown revitalization. When governments increase their support for the arts, 

they are generating tax revenues, jobs, and the creative energies that underlie much 

of what makes America so extraordinary. 

This message is equally important for the private sector to hear. The nonprofit 

arts, unlike most industries, leverage significant event-related spending by their audiences, with non-local audiences spending 75 percent more than their local counterparts. The arts attract visitors downtown and extend the business day: restaurants 

add dinner service, garages stay open until midnight, and stores draw more customers. 

When we hear talk about reducing support for the arts, we should ask: Who will 

make up for the lost economic activity? Who will attract tourists to our community? 

Who will vitalize our downtowns seven nights per week? Who will provide the 8-

to-1 return on investment that the arts provide to federal, state, and local treasuries? Who will replace the jobs that the arts support? The expression, ‘‘the arts 

mean business,’’ is an economic reality that can no longer be dismissed. 

Impact of NEA Grants on the Economy 

Federal arts grants administered by the National Endowment for the Arts are required to be matched by the private sector or with state and local government 

funds. As a result, NEA grants help leverage additional funds, which significantly 

contribute to our nation’s robust economic nonprofit arts industry. NEA’s matching 

requirement also provides incentives for state and local governments, as well as private donors, to maintain or increase their level of funding support. 

As important NEA grantees, local arts agencies are key local partners to the federal government in improving community life, from offering after-school arts education programs to generating economic development through increased tourism, 

urban renewal, and attracting new businesses. We urge this subcommittee to make 

a commitment to support community building and to secure the economic growth 

of the nonprofit arts industry by appropriating $170 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. 
477

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES, THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON EDUCATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UNIVERSITIES

AND LAND-GRANT COLLEGES

The Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, 

and the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges appreciate this opportunity to submit for the record testimony in support of the National 

Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Through our combined memberships, our associations represent virtually all of the public and private research universities in 

the country—institutions that educate large numbers of the nation’s undergraduate 

and graduate students and conduct the bulk of the country’s basic research and 

scholarship. We respectfully request that the Subcommittee provide the President’s 

request of $152 million for NEH in fiscal year 2004. 

The fiscal year 2004 request represents an increase of $27.1 million (21.6 percent) 

over fiscal year 2003 and would be the first significant increase in over a decade. 

The increase would be dedicated to the ‘‘We the People’’ history initiative announced 

by the President on September 17, 2002. The goal of the initiative is to deepen 

Americans’ knowledge and understanding of our national heritage. Because all divisions and programs would be eligible to participate in the initiative, more funds 

would be available for ongoing core programs—a goal long supported by our three 

associations. The ‘‘We the People’’ initiative will also involve an expansion of the 

NEH Summer Seminars and Institutes program, and enhanced support for American Editions and Reference Works, fundamental scholarly resources for understanding our identity as a nation. 

Given current world events and the war on terrorism, it is more important than 

ever that Americans have a good understanding of history. Several surveys over the 

last few years have emphasized both students’ and the public’s lack of knowledge 

about our nation’s history. 

—A recent National Assessment of Education Progress test found that more than 

half of high school seniors thought that Germany, Italy or Japan was our ally 

in World War II. 

—A Columbia Law School survey found that 35 percent of voting-age Americans 

thought that Karl Marx’s dogma, ‘‘From each according to his ability, to each 

according to his needs,’’ was in the United States Constitution. Another 34 percent responded that they weren’t sure. 

These findings highlight the need for the ‘‘We the People’’ initiative. University 

students all too quickly become working young adults, and their assumptions and 

attitudes are carried over into society at large. As NEH Chairman Bruce Cole has 

stated, ‘‘The principles of democratic self-government cannot be affirmed unless they 

are understood and remembered. Surely we diminish our young people’s lives and 

weaken our nation if students do not learn how the society in which they live came 

to be.’’

Many of NEH’s projects support efforts to preserve and expand our knowledge and 

understanding of our history and culture. Such projects are unlikely to be funded 

by any single state or institution because of their scale and magnitude. Only an 

agency like NEH, with its federal funds and broad vision can support such projects, 

which include bibliographies, encyclopedias, and the preservation of papers of great 

leaders, such as presidents George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower, and the papers and writings of Frederick Douglass, Benjamin Franklin, 

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lewis and Clark, Thomas Edison, and Mark Twain. NEH 

has also supported educational television documentaries such as Ken Bums’s The 

Civil War, The West, and Jazz, and biographical films on Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Charles Lindbergh, and George C. Marshall. 

History and culture is brought alive in other ways as well. At the University of 

Virginia, NEH grants have helped to support the ‘‘Valley of the Shadow’’ project 

(http://www.iath.virginia.edu/vshadow2n), an archive of documents, images, maps 

and records for two communities, one Northern and one Southern, during the Civil 

War. The project is a hypermedia archive of thousands of sources for the period before, during, and after the Civil War for Augusta County, Virginia, and Franklin 

County, Pennsylvania. Those sources include newspapers, letters, diaries, photographs, maps, church records, population census, agricultural census, and military 

records. Students can explore every dimension of the conflict and write their own 

histories, reconstructing the life stories of women, African Americans, farmers, politicians, soldiers, and families. The project is intended for secondary schools, community colleges, libraries, and universities. Shepherding and nurturing such efforts—

in essence, preserving our heritage—is the government’s trust and must remain at 

the federal level. 
478

NEH support often leverages state, local, and private philanthropic investment 

and increases public engagement with the humanities. The imprimatur of NEH 

funding, awarded on the basis of merit as determined by rigorous peer review, has 

a multiplier effect, increasing public participation in humanistic endeavors and attracting additional funds. NEH challenge grants require $3 or $4 in matching funds 

for each federal dollar, thereby generating more than $1.2 billion in nonfederal support for U.S. libraries, colleges, museums, and other eligible institutions. 

MATRIX, the Center for Humane Arts, Letters, and Social Sciences Online at 

Michigan State University, is one example of a project leveraged through NEH support. MATRIX is devoted to the application of new technologies in humanities and 

social science teaching and research. In addition to serving MSU and its faculty and 

academic units, MATRIX is the home of H-Net, which houses and supports over 100 

interactive listservs edited by scholars in North America, Europe, Africa, and the 

Pacific. MATRIX has received a very high level of external funding from federal 

grant agencies such as NSF, NEH, Ford, Mellon, USAID, and has very high on- and 

off-campus visibility, which includes international recognition and extensive collaborations with other countries, especially in western and southern Africa. Its members 

collaborate extensively with other disciplines, including those outside of the humanities. Notable academic accomplishments include projects providing educational access (e.g. for women in Africa), content for schools (e.g. Civics on-Line), and educational outreach (work with off-campus groups from other countries and local 

school districts). Further information can be found at http://www.matrix.msu.edu/

newmatrix. 

The creation of knowledge is one of the central missions of research universities. 

It permeates the institutions in ways seen nowhere else. NEH funds humanities research that may not be immediately accessible to the broader public, but which 

builds a foundation from which Americans of all ages will ultimately benefit. As the 

results of NEH-supported research become part of the learning environment, our 

overall knowledge base increases and new generations of scholars find fresh questions to explore. 

One example of this is the Digital Scriptorium at the University of California, 

Berkeley. The project was conceived as an image database of dated and datable medieval and renaissance manuscripts and was intended to unite scattered resources 

into an international tool for teaching and scholarly research. It has evolved into 

a general catalog designed for the use of paleographers, codicologists, art historians, 

textual scholars, and other researchers. It allows scholars to verify with their own 

eyes cataloguing information about places and dates of origin, scripts, artistic styles, 

and quality. It documents visually even those manuscripts that traditionally would 

have been unlikely candidates for reproduction. It provides public access to fragile 

materials otherwise available only within libraries. Because it is web-based, it encourages interaction between the knowledge of scholars and the holdings of libraries 

to build an ever-enriched and corrected flow of information. 

Another important role NEH plays is in the area of preservation. Again, such efforts are of substantial benefit to the entire nation but are unlikely to be funded 

by any individual state or institution. NEH’s Newspaper Program has supported 

newspaper preservation projects in each of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Cornell University has used NEH funds 

to coordinate the identification and preservation of 8,075 aging volumes on American agricultural history and rural life published between 1820 and 1945 and held 

by land grant universities in California, Florida, Nebraska, Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, and New York. The preservation of brittle 

books and newspapers assist scholars in producing source material accessible to all 

Americans, from legal scholars to political scientists to schoolchildren. 

Research universities, small private institutions, state colleges, and community 

colleges use NEH grants to conserve and nurture our American heritage, bring the 

humanities to the community, expand knowledge, and educate the next generation 

of Americans. NEH-supported summer seminars and institutes provide an opportunity for high school and college teachers to spend six to eight weeks learning from 

and working with leading scholars in the humanities. Summer seminars and institutes provide an exhilarating boost to the participants, regenerate their enthusiasm, 

and facilitate the transfer of new knowledge. This summer, teachers will have the 

opportunity to study ethics at the end of life at the University of Utah, Afro-Hispanic literature at the University of Missouri at Columbia, science and values at 

the University of Pittsburgh, and Aristotle’s writings on meaning and thought at 

San Diego State University. 

The NEH has enjoyed bipartisan support throughout its 38-year history and has 

been the most important source of federal support for humanistic endeavors in the 

United States. By deepening knowledge of our national heritage, the ‘‘We the Peo-
479

ple’’ initiative will give Americans a better understanding of how major events of 

our history reflect certain fundamental and enduring ideas. AAU, ACE and 

NASULGC strongly support this initiative, and again urge the Subcommittee to provide the $152 million that the President requested for NEH in fiscal year 2004. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF STATE HUMANITIES COUNCILS

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity 

to present written testimony on behalf of the state humanities councils, the statebased programs of the National Endowment for the Humanities. I am Jamie 

Doggett, chair of the board of the Federation of State Humanities Councils. My husband and I are ranchers in Montana, where I served three four-year terms as a governor’s appointee on the Montana Committee for the Humanities. I am writing in 

support of the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 Budget Request for the National 

Endowment for the Humanities which seeks funding of $152 million, including an 

increase of $25 million for the exciting new We the People (WTP) initiative on 

American history, culture and civics. The Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget 

request for NEH also includes the critically important continuation of $31.829 million in funding for state councils through the Federal-State Partnership line. We are 

pleased that this will be supplemented by significant resources we anticipate will 

be available to councils through the new WTP funding. 

The state humanities councils are located in each of the 50 states, Washington 

DC and the U.S. commonwealths and territories. Since their creation nearly three 

decades ago, the state councils have been promoting the use of history and literature to connect individuals with each other and with the life of their community. 

Working with dedicated historians and other scholars and professionals, the councils 

have helped communities understand and preserve their local history, define and 

distinguish among conflicting values, and undertake dialogue that can help address 

real problems. Notwithstanding the widening gap between their extremely modest 

funding level and the dramatic and consistently growing need and demand for their 

programs, state councils tirelessly seek to utilize the resources available to them as 

efficiently as possible in order to respond effectively to the demands of the communities they serve. Unfortunately, councils find it increasingly difficult to fulfill many 

of the burgeoning requests they receive. 

WE THE PEOPLE INITIATIVE

All of us involved with this vital work recognize now more than ever that it is 

crucial for Americans to understand our own history, culture and system of government before we are able to engage meaningfully with nations and groups with different traditions and values. Thus, councils have responded enthusiastically to the 

NEH’s expanded WTP initiative focused on broadening and deepening Americans’ 

understanding of our nation’s history and culture, for its thrust has for some time 

been a primary concern of state councils, as reflected in the Illinois council director’s 

description of her council’s ‘‘enduring commitment to promoting greater public understanding of our history in communities and venues, large and small, across the 

state.’’ It is illuminating to consider the tremendous scope of activities already underway across the country which typify the sense and spirit of WTP, with all state 

councils looking forward to additional resources which will allow them to build on 

what has already been accomplished. 

History and Heritage Programs 

Because they are deeply committed to responding to community needs, councils 

pursue a variety of approaches to promoting knowledge and understanding of American history and culture. Speakers Bureaus, a stable of speakers on a variety of topics who are available to do local programming for a minimal fee, are a long-standing 

and popular vehicle used by councils to deliver programs and expertise to locations 

throughout their states, especially distant rural areas. The Montana council hosts 

a Speakers Bureau with about half of its 100 programs focused on history including 

Native American studies, regional history, Lewis and Clark, and ‘‘living history.’’ In 

Oklahoma, ‘‘Territory Speakers’’ engage public audiences on topics such as ‘‘The 

Meaning of the American Revolution’’ and ‘‘Shaped By Adversity: The Depression 

Generation.’’ Iowa offers a rich array of Speakers Bureau programs including ‘‘The 

Underground Railroad in Iowa,’’ ‘‘The 30s and 40s Depression and WWII: How Did 

We Cope?’’ and ‘‘Early Iowa Pioneer Women,’’ with librarians and historical societies 

telling the council that these are some of the best programs their institutions offer. 

The council reports that requests for these programs has soared, exhausting the 

budget well before the end of the year and necessitating limiting organization re-
480

quests. In addition to allowing expansion of Speaker Bureaus programs to a level 

sufficient to meet demand, many councils seek new funding to support development 

of new WTP-focused speakers bureaus, some with a particular emphasis on reaching 

young people. 

Several councils sponsor chautauqua, or ‘‘living history,’’ programs which feature 

portrayals of historical characters. A group of councils, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, and North and South Dakota, have joined together in the ‘‘Great 

Plains Chautauqua,’’ a program conducted under a tent in local communities 

throughout the participating states. For the next four years the theme of the Great 

Plains Chautauqua is ‘‘From Sea to Shining Sea,’’ an examination of the westward 

expansion of the new American nation. They will feature scholars portraying historical figures such as William Clark, Sacagewea, York and Dolley Madison, who will 

participate in week-long residencies in rural communities and help audiences understand the theme in all its complexity. Great Plains Chautauqua programs draw 

thousands of attendees from throughout the local area; current resource constraints 

preclude councils from offering chautauqua programs in more than one community 

per year in their states. 

The Nevada council has an especially vibrant chautauqua program. The ‘‘Great 

Basin Chautauqau’’ is held on five consecutive nights in Reno and draws 1,000 people each night. The 2002 theme was ‘‘The Founders Generation’’ and for 2003 it will 

be ‘‘The Lewis and Clark Expedition.’’ In-state Chautauquans usually become a part 

of the council’s ‘‘Humanities on the Road’’ speakers bureau. The council also developed their ‘‘Young Chautauqua Program,’’ which received a Coming Up Taller 

Award from the President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities, as a creative 

approach to the teaching of history based on the research-intensive model of the 

adult chautauqua. 

A number of councils have developed programming with a particular emphasis on 

an understanding of state or local history. The Virginia humanities council has 

launched the African American Heritage Program, an educational and economic resource for the state jointly developed with the Virginia Tourism Corporation. The 

program includes a database of more than 400 significant historic sites, a trails program comprising publications and marketing to encourage the public to visit the 

sites, and a grant program supporting organizations involved in interpretation of 

Virginia’s African American Heritage as well as the goals of other components of 

the initiative. The Michigan council co-sponsors ‘‘Michigan’s Great Outdoors Culture 

Tour’’ featuring 24 performing artists and cultural interpreters offering more than 

110 programs in scenic settings such as parks, campgrounds, and historic sites in 

northern Michigan. The family-friendly events bring to life the rich culture and heritage of people, places, and traditions of Michigan’s northwoods and Great Lakes. 

The Humanities Council of Washington D.C. has inaugurated ‘‘Soul of the City,’’ a 

three-day urban leadership development seminar encompassing hands-on projects 

about Washington’s neighborhoods taught through the lens of history, ethics, literature and public spaces. 

Councils use their regrant programs to encourage programming done by other institutions, frequently providing greater outreach and access and encouraging institutional capacity-building. The South Carolina humanities council supported a series of forums focused on the story of Reconstruction history in Beaufort County, 

sponsored by the Reconstruction Heritage Partnership, a coalition of local institutions and governments. The Illinois council with a notable depth of programming 

in the area of American history and culture, has a broad cross-section of regrants 

and other activities which it has organized under headings such as Inventing America/Becoming America, America at Work, American Mirror/American Memories, and 

American Challenges/American Issues. In Wisconsin, the council has supported development of a 13-week series of radio programs combining oral histories and contemporary commentary to create living memories of Wisconsin. The director of the 

Nevada council has observed that some of the best humanities programs in the state 

are developed through their regrant program, with additional federal funds allowing 

them to create a program that would ‘‘roughly match the growing need.’’ The Florida 

council director speaks of the need to triple their regrant program to meet the needs 

of the 17 million people in their diverse, complex state. 

Support for K–12 Teachers and Students 

All of us recognize that teachers are at the frontline of addressing the challenge 

of understanding who we are and where we have been. The state humanities councils, two-thirds of which conduct either summer institutes or one- or two-day teacher 

workshops, have established these programs to provide high-quality support and assistance to teachers in the humanities, recognizing that it is these disciplines which 

provide children with the analytic and verbal skills they need to participate in 
481

democratic society. The Idaho council, for example, has sponsored annual summer 

institutes for teachers on topics ranging from the Bill of Rights to Idaho political 

history since WWII, with this year’s interdisciplinary institute for literature and history devoted to the theme of ‘‘John Steinbeck and the Art of Social Engagement.’’ 

This summer the New Jersey council is offering institutes for K–12 teachers on ‘‘A 

Reconsidered Past: New Scholarship in African American History’’ and ‘‘Religious 

Diversity in America.’’ The Georgia humanities council director captured eloquently 

the unique experience these institutes provide teachers in referring to letters received from attendees at the civil rights institute the council co-hosted last summer. 

He mentions participating teachers characterizing it as a life-changing experience, 

observing this happens because they ‘‘came into contact with heroism, sacrifice, 

[and] fundamental values of humanity for which some were willing to give their 

all . . .’’

The Nebraska humanities council has chosen to take advantage of what they refer 

to as the ‘‘teachable moment’’ provided by the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. The 

council has made a four-year commitment to programming that prepares K–12 

teachers to benefit from the newest scholarship on the Lewis and Clark Expedition 

with summer seminars, in-school workshops for school districts, and a state-wide 

video conference for school and public librarians on the best materials for acquisition. 

For nearly 20 years, the Louisiana humanities council has been funding intensive 

four-week graduate seminars for elementary, middle and high school teachers, with 

the potential to affect the quality of teaching for 78,000 students annually. A significant number of these seminars have focused on American history, including four 

seminars on the U.S. Constitution. Among the offerings this summer are seminars 

on the Bicentennial of the Louisiana Purchase. 

The Indiana council has focused on re-designing the customary residential teacher 

institute to take advantage of technology as a delivery system for content. They 

have created an internet tool which provides teachers with lesson plans tied to state 

academic standards and information about rich humanities resources from cultural, 

academic, and library sources around the state. 

Eager to assist teachers interested in providing students with meaningful and engaging material, several state councils are working in partnership with National 

History Day (NHD), the national year-long classroom-based education program 

which engages students in grades 6–12 in a process of discovery and interpretation 

of historical topics grounded in research. State councils both serve as state affiliates 

for National History Day and provide sustaining funding to other organizations in 

that role. The Maryland Humanities Council, which is the NHD state affiliate, 

views the program as an important vehicle for invigorating history education in the 

secondary grades. Crippling cutbacks in state support for NHD programs has constrained participation by many schools and the federal funding provided through 

state councils is often the only source of support for this and other similar highquality programming devoted to teaching and learning about our history and heritage. 

THE ONGOING NEED FOR NEW RESOURCES

In addition to expanding current programs and activities and pursuing new opportunities afforded by the new funding provided through the WTP initiative, councils 

continue to require funding for other core programs, many of which are targeted at 

audiences otherwise overlooked. For instance, several councils, such as Georgia, 

Maryland and Wisconsin, are grappling with the challenge of serving immigrant 

communities, a growing audience throughout the country Additional funding would 

allow the Oklahoma council to develop programming specifically addressed to the 

state’s Hispanic population which has grown 256 percent since 1990. 

In his testimony concerning the Administration’s fiscal year 2004 budget request, 

NEH Chairman Bruce Cole acknowledged the important role of state councils as the 

‘‘delivery system’’ for high-quality humanities programming, noting that the request 

incorporates significant support for local and statewide projects on American history, culture, and civics sponsored by the 56 state humanities councils, essential 

NEH partners who will help to ensure that We the People reaches throughout every 

state and territory of the nation. Although even in challenging economic circumstances councils work to raise resources from state and private sources, federal 

funding is a crucial catalyst for council activities and efforts both as part of the 

WTP initiative or more generally. 

Thank you for your continuing support for the work of the state councils and NEH 

and for your consideration of our endorsement of the Administration’s fiscal year 
482

2004 request for $152 million for the NEH, including the $25 million for the We 

the People initiative.
(i)

LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND 

PREPARED STATEMENTS 

Page

Abraham, Hon. Spencer, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department of 

Energy ................................................................................................................... 107

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 111

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 109

African Wildlife Foundation, prepared statement ................................................ 207

Alaska: 

Department of Fish and Game, prepared statement ..................................... 174

Native Health Board, prepared statement ..................................................... 460

Alliance to Save Energy, prepared statement ....................................................... 392

Allison Transmission Division of General Motors, Indianapolis, IN, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 395

American: 

Association of Museums, prepared statements.......................................... 207, 472

Bird Conservancy, prepared statement .......................................................... 207

Council on Education, prepared statement .................................................... 477

Forest and Paper Association, prepared statement ....................................... 349

Gas Association, prepared statement ............................................................. 398

Geological Institute, prepared statement ....................................................... 243

Hiking Society, prepared statement ............................................................... 212

Indian Graduate Center, prepared statement ............................................... 265

Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement ......................... 266

Iron and Steel Institute, prepared statement ................................................ 400

Public Power Association, prepared statement .............................................. 402

Society for Microbiology, prepared statement ................................................ 246

Sportfishing Association, prepared statement ............................................... 351

Veterinary Medical Association, prepared statement .................................... 207

Zoo and Aquarium Association, prepared statement ..................................... 207

Americans for: 

National Parks, prepared statement ............................................................... 210

Our Heritage and Recreation, prepared statement ....................................... 211

The Arts, prepared statement ......................................................................... 474

Anza-Borrego Foundation, prepared statement .................................................... 348

Appalachian: 

Mountain Club, prepared statement ............................................................... 354

Trail Conference, prepared statement ............................................................ 356

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 269

Association of: 

American Universities, prepared statement .................................................. 477

Navajo Community Controlled School Boards, prepared statement ............ 271

Audubon, prepared statement ................................................................................ 362

Florida, prepared statement ............................................................................ 215

New York, prepared statement ....................................................................... 340

Bear Trust International, prepared statement ..................................................... 205

Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator from Utah: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 8

Questions submitted ......................................................................................... 102

Biomass Energy Research Association, prepared statements ......................... 403, 408

Bob Lawrence & Associates, Inc., prepared statement ........................................ 406

Boone and Crockett Club, prepared statement ..................................................... 205

Bosworth, Dale, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1
Page

ii

Bosworth, Dale, Chief, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture—Continued

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 11

Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, prepared statement ...................................... 205

Buckmasters American Deer Foundation, prepared statement ........................... 205

Bureau of Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 411

Burns, Senator Conrad, U.S. Senator from Montana: 

Opening statements .................................................................................. 1, 57, 107

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58

Questions submitted by ................................................................................. 86, 141

Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 121

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 157

California: 

Government and Private Sector Coalition for Operation Clean Air (OCA), 

prepared statement ....................................................................................... 416

Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) Coalition, prepared statement .............................................................................. 216

Campbell, Senator Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 5

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 39

Campfire Club of America, prepared statement ................................................... 205

Caterpillar Inc., prepared statement ..................................................................... 413

Center for Advanced Separation Technologies, prepared statement ................... 417

Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, prepared statement ................ 339

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, prepared statement .............................................. 463

Chugach Regional Resources Commission, prepared statement ......................... 274

Citizens for Mojave National Park, prepared statement ...................................... 218

City of Kansas City, MO, prepared statement ...................................................... 176

Civil War Preservation Trust, prepared statement .............................................. 219

Coal Utilization Research Council (CURC), prepared statement ........................ 420

Coalition of Northeastern Governors, prepared statement .................................. 423

Colorado River: 

Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement ...................................... 163

Board of California, prepared statement ........................................................ 165

Confederated Tribes of the: 

Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, prepared statement ........................... 277

Warm Springs Reservation, prepared statement ........................................... 278

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, prepared statement .............................. 205

Conservation: 

Force, prepared statement ............................................................................... 205

International, prepared statement .................................................................. 207

Trust Fund Coalition, prepared statement .................................................... 342

Council of Annette Islands Reserve, Metlakatla Indian Community, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 464

Crownpoint Institute of Technology (CIT), prepared statement .......................... 281

Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statements...................................................... 177, 207

Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International, prepared statement ............................ 207

Domenici, Senator Pete V., U.S. Senator from South Carolina: 

Opening statements ......................................................................................... 9, 126

Questions submitted by .......................................................................... 35, 99, 153

Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota: 

Opening statements .................................................................................. 3, 59, 108

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 60

Questions submitted by ................................................................................. 42, 105

Doris Day Animal League, prepared statement .................................................... 166

Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, prepared statement .............. 283

Enewetak/Ujelang Local Government Council, prepared statement ................... 336

Federation of State Humanities Councils, prepared statement .......................... 479

Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator from California: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 7

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 157

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, prepared statement ................. 284

Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, prepared statement ...................... 205
Page

iii

Fremont County, WY Legislative Delegation and Members of the Select Committee on Tribal Relations, letter from .............................................................. 286

Friends of: 

Acadia, prepared statement ............................................................................. 220

Back Bay, prepared statement ........................................................................ 175

Great Smoky Mountains National Park, prepared statement ...................... 220

Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, prepared statement ..................... 180

Frontera Audubon Society, prepared statement ................................................... 180

Gasification Technologies Council, prepared statement ....................................... 424

General Electric Power Systems, prepared statement ......................................... 426

Grand Canyon National Park Foundation, prepared statement ......................... 221

Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, prepared statement .......... 287

Ground Water Protection Council, prepared statement ....................................... 248

Highlands Coalition, prepared statement .............................................................. 367

Hollings, Senator Ernest F., U.S. Senator from South Carolina, questions 

submitted by ......................................................................................................... 48

Hoopa: 

Tribe of California, prepared statement ......................................................... 289

Valley Tribe, prepared statement ................................................................... 465

Houston Safari Club, prepared statement ............................................................. 205

Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement ................................. 182

IBACOS, Inc., prepared statement ......................................................................... 429

Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture and Arts Development, prepared statement ................................................................................... 469

International: 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared statements ................. 167, 

185, 205, 222, 250, 291, 369

Elephant Foundation, prepared statement .................................................... 207

Fund for Animal Welfare, prepared statement .............................................. 207

Rhino Foundation, prepared statement .......................................................... 207

Interstate: 

Council on Water Policy, prepared statement ................................................ 252

Mining Compact Commission, prepared statement ....................................... 260

InterTribal: 

Bison Cooperative, prepared statement .......................................................... 292

Timber Council, prepared statement .............................................................. 295

Izaak Walton League of America, prepared statement ........................................ 205

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, prepared statement ................................................. 298

Jane Goodall Institute, prepared statement .......................................................... 207

Japanese American Citizens League, prepared statement .................................. 224

Kashdan, Hank, Director of Program and Budget Analysis, Department of 

Agriculture ............................................................................................................ 1

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 299

Lower: 

Elwha Klallam Tribe, prepared statement ..................................................... 302

Lake Rancheria Koi Nation, prepared statement .......................................... 303

Lummi Nation, prepared statement ....................................................................... 304

Mescalero Apache Tribe, prepared statement ....................................................... 307

Mineral Policy Center, prepared statement .......................................................... 253

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, prepared statements.............. 192, 224

Mother Lode Chapter of the Sierra Club, prepared statement ............................ 371

Mule Deer Foundation, prepared statement ......................................................... 205

Narragansett Indian Tribe, prepared statement .................................................. 309

National: 

American Indian Court Judges Association, prepared statement ................ 312

Association for State Community Services Programs, prepared statement ............................................................................................................... 432

Association of: 

Abandoned Mine Land Programs, prepared statement ......................... 263

Conservation Districts, prepared statement ........................................... 372

State Energy Officials, prepared statement ............................................ 434

State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, prepared statement ....... 477 
Page

iv

National—Continued

Association of—Continued

University Fisheries and Wildlife Programs, pepared statement ......... 193

Audobon Society, prepared statement ............................................................ 207

Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, prepared statement .... 225

Council for Science and the Environment, prepared statement ................... 254

Indian Health Board, prepared statement ..................................................... 466

Institutes for Water Resources, prepared statement ..................................... 256

Mining Association, prepared statement ........................................................ 438

Parks Conservation Association, prepared statement ................................... 227

Recreation and Park Association, prepared statement ................................. 239

Research Center for Coal and Energy, West Virginia University, prepared 

statement ....................................................................................................... 441

Rifle Association, prepared statement ............................................................ 205

Shooting Sports Foundation, prepared statement ......................................... 205

Trappers Association, prepared statement ..................................................... 205

Wildlife Federation, prepared statement ........................................................ 207

Navajo Nation, prepared statement ....................................................................... 314

Nebraska Game & Parks Commission, prepared statement ................................ 196

New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, prepared statement ...................... 171

New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation, prepared statement ................................................................................................... 241

Nez Perce Tribe, prepared statement .................................................................... 317

Northern Forest Alliance, prepared statement ..................................................... 380

Norton, Hon. Gale A., Secretary of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 57

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67

Summary statement ......................................................................................... 63

Oregon Water Resources Congress, prepared statement ..................................... 196

Partnership for the National Trails System, prepared statement ....................... 230

Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, prepared statement ............................. 443

Plug Power Inc., prepared statement ..................................................................... 445

Pope and Young Club, prepared statement ........................................................... 205

Preservation Action, prepared statement .............................................................. 242

Puyallup Tribe of Indians, prepared statement .................................................... 322

Quality Deer Management Association, prepared statement .............................. 205

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, prepared statement ........................................ 205

Ruffed Grouse Society, prepared statement .......................................................... 205

Safari Club International, prepared statements .............................................. 205, 207

SAGE Electrochromics, Inc., prepared statement ................................................. 448

Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe, prepared statement .................................................. 325

Scarlett, P. Lynn, Assistant Secretary, Policy, Management and Budget, Department of the Interior ...................................................................................... 57

Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement .................................................... 327

Shikar Safari Club International, prepared statement ........................................ 205

Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation, prepared statement ........................ 449

Sierra: 

Club, prepared statement ................................................................................ 207

Nevada Alliance, prepared statement ............................................................. 383

Society for: 

American Archaeology, prepared statement .................................................. 207 

American Foresters, prepared statement ....................................................... 385

Historical Archaeology, prepared statement .................................................. 207

Southern Company, prepared statement ............................................................... 452

Southwest Tribal Fisheries Commission, prepared statement ............................ 329

Squaxin Island Tribe, prepared statement ............................................................ 331

Stevens, Senator Ted, U.S. Senator from Alaska: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 60

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62

Questions submitted by ................................................................................... 97

Teachers’ Retirement System, State of California, prepared statement ............. 455

Teaming with Wildlife Steering Committee, prepared statement ....................... 195

Tern and Plover Conservation Partnership, prepared statement ....................... 199
Page

v

The: 

Cascades Conservation Partnership, prepared statement ............................ 365

Fund for Animals, prepared statement .......................................................... 207

Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement ......................... 207

Nature Conservancy, prepared statements................................................ 207, 375

Ocean Conservancy, prepared statement ....................................................... 342

Wilderness Society, prepared statement ........................................................ 345

Wildlife Conservation Society, prepared statement ....................................... 207

Wildlife Society, prepared statements........................................................ 205, 390

Trezise, John D., Director of Budget, Department of the Interior ...................... 57

Tumbledown Conservation Alliance, prepared statement .................................... 388

United States Advanced Ceramics Association, prepared statement .................. 457

United Tribes Technical College, prepared statement ......................................... 333

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement ........................ 199

Whitetails Unlimited, Inc., prepared statement ................................................... 205

WildAid, prepared statement .................................................................................. 207

Wildlife Management Institute, prepared statements .......................................... 172, 

202, 205, 207, 259, 388

Wind River Irrigation Project in Wyoming, prepared statement ........................ 335

World Wildlife Fund, prepared statement ............................................................. 207

Wyoming Water Association, letter from ............................................................... 204 

(vii)

SUBJECT INDEX 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

FOREST SERVICE

Page

Accountability .......................................................................................................... 15

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 35

Aerial Operations ..................................................................................................... 40

Alaska: 

Forest Trip by Air ............................................................................................. 32

Jurisdictional Problems ................................................................................... 31

Analysis Paralysis ................................................................................................... 6

Assessment of Threat .............................................................................................. 39

Audit Opinion ........................................................................................................... 12

Bark Beetle .............................................................................................................. 7, 9

Beetle Kill on the Kenai Peninsula ........................................................................ 31

Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation ................................................................ 2

Categorical Exclusions ............................................................................................ 14

Collaborative Adaptive Management Program ..................................................... 7

Cost Containment .................................................................................................... 52

County Partnership: 

Program ............................................................................................................. 28

Restoration ........................................................................................................ 35

Deferred Maintenance ............................................................................................. 36

Drought ...................................................................................................................... 2, 25

Establishment of Emergency Treatment Objective .............................................. 39

Evironmental Litigation Costs ................................................................................ 9

Fire: 

Funding ............................................................................................................. 43

Impacts on Watersheds .................................................................................... 24

Preparedness ...................................................................................................... 2, 37

Suppression ................................................................................................ 11

Firefighters ................................................................................................................ 3, 42

Firewise .................................................................................................................... 24

Forest Service Research .......................................................................................... 16

Grass Banks ............................................................................................................. 47

Grasslands Management Plan ................................................................................ 46

Grazing Permits ....................................................................................................... 4

Ground Operations .................................................................................................. 40

Grounded: 

Air Tanker Fleet ............................................................................................... 25

Fire Air Tanker Fleet ....................................................................................... 6

Hazardous Fuel Treatments ................................................................................... 53

Healthy Forests Initiative ....................................................................................... 12

Insects and Disease ................................................................................................. 38

Invasive Species ....................................................................................................... 34

Lake: 

Arrowhead ......................................................................................................... 22

Tahoe ................................................................................................................. 21

Restoration Act .......................................................................................... 8

Leafy Spurge....................................................................................................... 4, 34, 45

Legislative Proposals............................................................................................... 13, 18

Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Activities ................................................................... 46

Maintenance ............................................................................................................. 44

National Forest Land Management Planning ....................................................... 32
Page

viii

Noxious Weeds........................................................................................................... 5, 33

Prairie Dog ............................................................................................................... 8

President’s Management Agenda ........................................................................... 16

Process Predicament ........................................................................................ 14, 15, 27

Quincy Library Group ............................................................................................. 8

Range Management.......................................................................................... 13, 16, 33

Recreation Fee Demonstration Program ................................................................ 23

Research................................................................................................................... 13, 19

Safety—Ground and Aviation Operations ............................................................. 54

San Bernadino National Forest .............................................................................. 21

Sheyenne Valley Grazing Association .................................................................... 48

Situational Assessment ........................................................................................... 51

State and Private Forestry ..................................................................................... 16

Stewardship Contracting ................................................................... 10, 11, 19, 28, 37

The Next 100 Years for America’s National Forests and Grasslands ................. 17

Tongass Timber Reform Act ................................................................................... 30

USDA Forest Service—Fire & Aviation Operations Action Plan 2003 ............... 50

Vibrant Forest and Range Based Economy ........................................................... 36

Water Filtration Plants ........................................................................................... 24

Western: 

Forest Fires ....................................................................................................... 22

Water Rights ..................................................................................................... 23

Wildland: 

Fire Management ............................................................................................. 26

Urban Interface ................................................................................................ 29

Yosemite Toad .......................................................................................................... 7

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 140

Advanced Vehicle Technology Programs—Partnership for a New Generation 

of Vehicles (PNGV) and FreedomCAR ............................................................... 142

Clean Coal ................................................................................................................ 130

Power Initiative ................................................................................................ 153

Technology Program ......................................................................................... 133

Clean Energy Technology Exports ......................................................................... 138

Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) ................................................... 153

Competitive Sourcing Program ............................................................................... 136

Elk Hill ..................................................................................................................... 161

Energy: 

Conservation Budget Request ......................................................................... 117

Information Administration Budget Request ................................................. 120

Markets ............................................................................................................. 159

Environmental Impacts of Fuels ............................................................................ 144

Fiscal Year 2004/05 Competitive Sourcing/A–76 Planning .................................. 137

Fossil Energy: 

Budget Request ................................................................................................. 113

OMB Budget ..................................................................................................... 129

Program Top-to-Bottom Review ...................................................................... 135

Research Budget Cuts ...................................................................................... 127

Distributed Generation—Fuel Cells—Solid State Electricity Conversion 

Alliance (SECA) ............................................................................................ 150

Distributed Generation—Fuel Cells—Vision 21—Hybrids ........................... 150

Domestic Gas Production/Imports ................................................................... 147

Domestic Oil Production/Imports .................................................................... 146

Fuels .................................................................................................................. 149

Futuregen .......................................................................................................... 151

Fuel Cell............................................................................................................... 130, 155

Research at Los Alamos National Laboratory ............................................... 132

Future-Gen ............................................................................................................... 134

Gasoline Prices ......................................................................................................... 124

High Temperature Superconductivity .................................................................... 156

Hybrid Technology ................................................................................................... 133

Hydrogen: 

Fuel .................................................................................................................... 160

Transportation System ..................................................................................... 141
Page

ix

Hydrogen—Continued

Vehicles ............................................................................................................. 131

Insourcing ................................................................................................................. 137

Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Budget Request ............................ 113

National Energy Technology Laboratory ............................................................... 134

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves—Rocky Mountain Oil Technology 

Center (RMOTC) .................................................................................................. 151

Non-Release of Department’s OMB Budget Request ............................................ 129

Nuclear Weapons Testing ....................................................................................... 157

Off-Highway Vehicle R&D ...................................................................................... 144

Program Termination ....................................................................................... 124

Oil and Gas: 

Federal Transmission Siting ........................................................................... 155

Research ............................................................................................................ 154

Performance Measures ............................................................................................ 145

Petroleum Reserves ................................................................................................. 116

President’s Management Agenda and National Energy Policy Coordination ..... 112

Program Assessment Rating Tool [PART] ............................................................. 128

Solid State: 

Conversion Alliance .......................................................................................... 139

Energy Conversion Alliance ............................................................................. 139

Lighting ............................................................................................................. 152

Status of Clean Energy Technology Report ........................................................... 139

Summary of the Management Plan ....................................................................... 136

Technology Transfer—Clean Energy Technology Export (CETE) ....................... 157

Transition of Technologies to Market .................................................................... 143

U.S. Department of Energy, Revised Competitive Sourcing Plan ....................... 136

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Activity Based Costing ............................................................................................ 83

Additional Committee Questions ............................................................................ 86

Alaska Conveyance Program .................................................................................. 97

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act ............................................... 97

Budget Overview ...................................................................................................... 68

Bureau of Land Management: 

CBM EIS for Montana ..................................................................................... 92

Energy and Minerals ........................................................................................ 94

Fire Funding ..................................................................................................... 95

Montana Gas Permitting ................................................................................. 92

Conservation Grants ................................................................................................ 70

Conserving Wildlife and Fisheries ......................................................................... 70

Cooperative Conservation Initiative ...................................................................... 64, 69

Crownpoint Institute of Technology ....................................................................... 99

Denali National Park .............................................................................................. 98

Different Funding Categories ................................................................................. 76

Energy Development ............................................................................................... 65

Everglades Restoration ........................................................................................... 66

Federal Permit Streamlining Pilot Project ............................................................ 103

Federally-Owned Land Statistics ........................................................................... 99

Fish and Wildlife Grant Programs ......................................................................... 96

Fort Peck Reservation/Dry Prairie ......................................................................... 91

FWS/Consultation on Fuels Reduction Projects .................................................... 89

Going-to-the-Sun Road ............................................................................................ 89

Helping to Meet the Nation’s Energy Needs ......................................................... 72

Historical Trust Accounting .................................................................................... 74

Indian: 

Education................................................................................................... 65, 73, 77

School Construction .......................................................................................... 100

Schools ............................................................................................................... 75

Law Enforcement and Security .............................................................................. 74

Maintenance Backlog .............................................................................................. 65

MMS Royalty-In-Kind ............................................................................................. 88

Mojave Desert Tortoise ........................................................................................... 104

Northwest Area Water Supply Project ................................................................... 79

OIA/Status of Compact Negotiations ..................................................................... 89
Page

x

Oil and Gas Permitting on Federal Lands ............................................................ 102

Other Partnerships .................................................................................................. 70

Other Program Initiatives ....................................................................................... 66

Overhead .................................................................................................................. 82

PILT—Proposed Movement From BLM to the Department Level ...................... 93

Powder River Basin EIS .......................................................................................... 84

President’s Management Agenda ........................................................................... 91

Program Assessment Rating ................................................................................... 81

Recreation ................................................................................................................. 73

Opportunities .................................................................................................... 65

Rural Water Program Legislative Proposal ........................................................... 80

Santa Fe Indian School Reconstruction Funding .................................................. 101

Science...................................................................................................................... 67, 74

Security ..................................................................................................................... 67

SMCRA Reauthorization ......................................................................................... 86

Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) ................................................ 101

Spruce Bark Beetles ................................................................................................ 99

State Regulatory Grants ......................................................................................... 87

Stewardship Contracting ........................................................................................ 84

Taking Care of Parks .............................................................................................. 72

Tribal Colleges Funding .......................................................................................... 77

Trust Programs ........................................................................................................ 68

Trust Reform: 

Initiatives .......................................................................................................... 63

Reform Reorganization ..................................................................................... 95

Wild Horse and Burro Program ............................................................................. 78, 83

Wildland: 

Fire .................................................................................................................... 66

And Healthy Forests ................................................................................. 71

Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ................................................................... 85

Æ